All News (Page 97)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday ordered a sweeping crackdown across the West Bank, including increased troop deployments, new checkpoints, and expanded counterterrorism operations, after two Israelis were killed in a shooting near Gilad Farm.

According to the IDF, a group of Israeli civilians had illegally crossed into Palestinian Authority-controlled territory while hiking in the area, leading to a confrontation with local Palestinians. The military said Palestinians began throwing rocks before one of them opened fire.

The two Israelis killed were later identified as 32-year-old Master Sergeant (Res.) Benayahu Melet, a member of Gilad Farm’s emergency response squad who was killed after rushing to aid the hikers, and 27-year-old IDF Maj. Yuval Ezra, an artillery battery commander.

Following the attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir held a security assessment to discuss Israel’s response, the Prime Minister’s Office said.

“We will act strongly against terrorists and their proxies, and we will not allow terrorism in Judea and Samaria to raise its head,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu and Katz later announced five immediate measures: demolishing the home of the suspected attacker; expanding counterterrorism operations in villages described as “hotbeds of terror,” including seizing weapons and revoking work permits, reinforcing IDF deployments across the West Bank, establishing additional checkpoints, and accelerating the authorization of existing farms and the establishment of new ones.

The two also stressed that security forces must be allowed to operate “freely and with full force” against terrorism without interference.

Shin Bet chief warns Israelis not to ‘take the law into their own hands’

Shin Bet Director David Zini visited the scene and held a situational assessment with agency and IDF commanders, describing the attack as “grave and painful.”

“We are working tirelessly, shoulder to shoulder with the commanders of the Central Command and the division, as well as IDF commanders and soldiers, to thwart terrorism in the sector,” Zini said.

At the same time, he urged Israelis not to retaliate independently following the clashes in the area.

“I call on the public not to take the law into their own hands and to place their trust in the IDF and the Shin Bet, whose purpose and duty are to protect them,” he said.

James Genn contributed to this report.

Ukraine and the United States are pushing the Kremlin into a new round of peace talks, after Kyiv continued its long-range strikes on Russian infrastructure.

According to the Kyiv Independent, Ukraine and the US are hoping that the shift in the war could force Russia back to the negotiating table. 

One US official told the Kyiv Independent that the White House thinks that Russian President Vladimir Putin may now be more willing to accept at least a partial aerial ceasefire, after Russia has been bombarded with strikes near Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner earlier this week.

A source with knowledge of the conversation told the Kyiv Independent that the pair told Zelensky that Washington is revising the framework for negotiations. Once that is completed, Kyiv and Washington will closely coordinate on proposals before they are presented to Moscow.

Trump, Zelensky to meet in Washington as Witkoff, Kushner head to Moscow

The two US envoys are expected to head to Moscow in late July or early August to continue discussions.

Notably, Zelensky is set to meet with US President Donald Trump next week to attend former US senator Lindsay Graham’s funeral. The pair of leaders are expected to discuss developments in peace talks as well as updates on the frontlines of the nearly four-year-old war.

Zelensky said on Thursday that a trilateral meeting between the US, Ukraine, and Zelensky could happen as early as the fall.

“I think there will be a trilateral meeting then. Of course, we need to do all this by the fall. I think we need to work hard on this. If it were up to us, it would be in July. But not everything depends on us,” Zelensky said.

On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the US would need new ideas to begin peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

“If, when peace comes, it’ll be because of some new idea and some new concepts, and we’re prepared to offer some of those in the right setting and form if the opportunity presents itself and the conditions are right,” Rubio said. “We’re prepared to play that role in a positive way.”

“I think it is a very bloody war,” he added. “I think both sides should have an incentive to bring it to an end. That’s been the challenge: an end that both sides can accept, and we’ve tried, and we’ll continue to try to see if we can find a middle ground that brings this about.”

Ukraine, US push for partial peace deal

On Friday, the Kremlin doubled down and asserted that any new US proposals would need to be “acceptable” for Russia.

Moscow has repeatedly demanded that the US stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, and walk back its positions to be closer to the “Alaska Understandings.”

The “Alaska Understandings” are what the Kremlin asserts is a series of agreements reached last summer during Putin’s meeting with Trump in Alaska.

Notably, the “understandings” involve the US pressuring Ukraine to relinquish control of the Donbas region. Kyiv has repeatedly stated that would be a nonstarter.

Russia, for its part, has refused to participate in talks in countries it views as neutral.

The tides seem to be turning to a certain extent in the war, but officials who spoke to the Kyiv Independent believe both Kyiv and Moscow have reasons to pursue a partial ceasefire.

Although it can now produce Patriot missiles, Ukraine is still running low on interceptor munitions, and Russia’s threadbare air defenses have left it increasingly more open to attacks.

However, Ukrainian officials believe that Russia is unlikely to end the war full stop. As such, Ukrainian and US officials believe that a partial ceasefire, which has been floated before, seems like the most realistic option.

Reuters contributed to this report.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz named German Health Minister Nina Warken as his new chief of staff on Friday, as part of a reshuffle intended to inject momentum into his unpopular government before difficult state elections in September.

Merz also said more changes were to come. Two sources familiar with the matter said he was set to replace his transport minister, but that will take longer as Merz’s pick pulled out after initially agreeing to take the role.

Warken will be the first woman to hold her new post, an important position that serves as a node between the chancellery, ministries and lawmakers at a time when Merz is pushing reforms to revive Europe’s largest economy.

The reset follows the abrupt resignation of conservative party heavyweight Jens Spahn as parliamentary faction chief, in a row over his decision to have a surrogate baby despite his party’s staunch opposition to surrogacy.

Merz is under pressure to deliver after a testing first year in office. He trails in opinion polls to the far-right Alternative for Germany and faces the prospect of the AfD gaining power for the first time at state level in September.

Economic growth has struggled to revive, with Germany’s vaunted export-driven economy under threat from rising costs at home and competition abroad. Global tariff ructions and the energy shock from the Iran war are also hobbling growth.

“We are a reform-oriented government, and we intend to continue demonstrating that,” Merz told reporters in Berlin, promising to “hit the ground running” when parliament reconvenes after a summer recess.

Merz had picked Warken, 47, to oversee health reforms to rein in soaring healthcare costs, a job that will now fall to another party heavyweight, Carsten Linnemann.

Warken is “assertive and well-versed in security policy” and “a tough negotiator,” Merz said.

Merz popularity sinks, AFD takes lead

Merz is set to replace German Transport Minister Patrick Schnieder amid frustration over the state of Germany’s rail network and crumbling infrastructure, two sources said, with train delays now a national topic of conversation.

Political analyst Oliver Lembcke said Merz, 70, was looking to project strength while making his government and party look younger and more female.

“However, he must be careful not to bungle the process,” he added, saying Merz had to avoid drawing out the reshuffle for too long. “Anyone who wavers here quickly squanders their authority, and the chancellor cannot afford any further loss of authority,” he said.

The train drivers’ union cautioned against blaming the rail network’s problems on an individual, saying policy makers had for years failed to provide clear goals, binding mandates or consistent management.

“Germany does not need further political reshuffles, but rather determination, expertise, and reliability,” it said.

Merz’s outgoing chief of staff, Thorsten Frei, will succeed Spahn as head of the CDU/CSU faction in parliament.

Merz said he would make further changes to his cabinet but declined to give further details, adding that these would take more time.

Merz’s popularity is at an all-time low, according to a RTL/ntv Trendbarometer poll this week, with only 14% of respondents satisfied with his performance compared to 85% dissatisfied.

The AfD tops national polls at 26%, ahead of the conservatives at 22%, before elections in the eastern states of Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in September that the AfD hopes will help pave the way for national success.

The confrontation between the United States and Iran is increasingly becoming a conflict without a clearly contained battlefield. 

What began as an escalation centered on direct US-Iran military exchanges and the strategic struggle over the Strait of Hormuz is now generating pressure across a much wider geographical space. Gulf states have faced attacks and threats against critical infrastructure. The possibility of US operations against Iranian territory has expanded beyond air strikes to discussions surrounding Kharg Island and potential cooperation with Kurdish and other anti-regime forces. Iranian warnings have, in turn, raised the possibility of retaliation extending to Kuwait and potentially Bahrain. 

A source inside Iran told The Media Line that Tehran is threatening to invade Kuwait if the US undertakes a ground operation backed by Kurdish forces. The report echoes a threat by Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a member of parliament’s National Security Committee, last week that “If the United States puts boots on the ground in Iran, we may also launch ground attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain.”  

Meanwhile, the Houthis have added another layer of instability around Bab-el-Mandeb by targeting Saudi-linked shipping, placing pressure on one of the principal maritime alternatives available to Riyadh as the crisis around Hormuz continues. 

Israel, which has remained outside the latest phase of the direct US-Iran confrontation, is also watching events closely. The reopening of public shelters in several municipalities on Thursday does not indicate that an Iranian attack is imminent, but it does reflect concern that a further escalation between Washington and Tehran could once again bring Israel directly into the conflict. 

Is a ground war likely?

Taken together, these developments do not yet demonstrate that a regional ground war is imminent. But they raise a consequential question: whether the growing number of military options now being discussed could eventually create an escalation that neither Washington nor Tehran initially intended. 

The distinction is important because a conventional US invasion of Iran, a limited seizure of an island such as Kharg, a special-forces operation and a campaign relying on Kurdish or other local forces would each represent fundamentally different forms of military intervention. 

John Keith King, founder of Q Advisory, cautioned against interpreting the existence of such options as evidence that the White House has already decided to open a ground front. 

“These possibilities must be taken seriously, but contingency planning should not be confused with a presidential decision to begin a ground war,” King told The Media Line. “The Pentagon plans for multiple options, including limited island seizures, special-operations missions and support for indigenous forces.” 

For King, the operational indicators required for a substantial ground operation have not yet been publicly demonstrated. 

“I have not seen publicly verifiable evidence of the integrated command arrangements, protected staging areas, sustained logistics and US air-support commitments that would indicate an imminent operation,” he said. In his view, a Kurdish ground component would be more plausible than a conventional American invasion, but that would still require extensive US support, he added. 

The distinction between planning and execution remains central to understanding the current phase of the war. 

Large militaries routinely prepare multiple scenarios. But once one side begins to believe that contingency planning reflects a decision to pursue regime destruction or territorial occupation, the political meaning of military preparations can change rapidly. 

From Tehran’s perspective, that danger is particularly significant. Mohammed Ali Ghanamizadeh Fallahi, a Middle East researcher based in Tehran, argued that the pattern of American strikes in southern Iran should already be viewed within the context of possible preparations for a wider operation. 

“The most important issue is that the US attacks on southern Iran, according to the footage released by CENTCOM [United States Central Command], are not primarily aimed at military targets or even important infrastructure,” he told The Media Line. Ghanamizadeh Fallahi said that in his opinion, the type of target selection shows that the US is waging a psychological war against the people of the southern regions, so that if a ground attack is carried out, these areas would already be depopulated and the defenses reduced. 

His interpretation of American intentions is an assessment rather than an independently established US strategy. But it highlights one of the central risks of the current confrontation: Washington may consider its actions part of a coercive military campaign, while Tehran increasingly interprets the same actions as possible preparations for a much broader attack. 

Ghanamizadeh Fallahi also questioned whether a southern ground operation would be strategically sustainable. “The plan to attack through southern Iran is not very wise or practical, because American equipment is not suitable for the climate of the Iranian islands,” he said, adding that other forces of the resistance axis may also be able to cut off American forces. 

He argued that the history of previous ground wars fought by the US would also weigh heavily on any decision to move beyond air and maritime operations, especially against an opponent with significant experience in ground and guerrilla warfare, and remembering its own experiences from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. “This makes a ground attack against Iran difficult, even from different fronts, unless it inflames internal protests in Iran and disrupts Iranian national unity,” he said. 

The possible effects of Kurdish involvement

It is precisely that possibility—the combination of external military pressure and internal instability—that has made the Kurdish and ethnic-minority question increasingly relevant to speculation surrounding the next phase of the conflict. 

Iran is not ethnically homogeneous, and several communities have longstanding political grievances with the central government. Kurdish armed organizations operating from northern Iraq have previously confronted Tehran, while Baluch areas in southeastern Iran have also experienced persistent instability. 

A strategy based on such groups could theoretically allow Washington to create pressure inside Iran without immediately deploying large numbers of American ground forces. Yet such a strategy would carry risks that extend far beyond the battlefield. 

King said Kurdish forces could provide Washington with several tactical opportunities. 

“Washington might hope that Iranian Kurdish forces could divert the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, disrupt supply routes, collect intelligence, secure territory or encourage broader opposition to Tehran,” he said. 

But tactical pressure and strategic success are not the same thing. 

“The danger is that this could transform a conflict over Iran’s nuclear, missile and maritime behavior into an ethnic and territorial war,” King said. “Iranian nationalism could strengthen the government rather than weaken it, while Tehran could retaliate directly against Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey, Baghdad and neighboring states would also fear separatist spillover.” 

In that scenario, an effort intended to weaken the Iranian state could instead strengthen nationalist support for Tehran while simultaneously creating new tensions across Iraq and Turkey. “Kurdish forces could create tactical pressure, but they are unlikely by themselves to produce controlled regime change or a stable postwar settlement,” King said. 

Kobi Michael, an analyst and researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and the Misgav Institute, also believes Kurdish involvement could become relevant if the confrontation continues to expand. 

“The Kurds might play a role, but it depends on the developments,” Michael said, noting that many Kurds are interested in achieving increased autonomy. 

He also pointed to other minorities with unresolved grievances against Tehran, suggesting that a broader internal front could eventually emerge even without a single, centrally coordinated military operation. 

But any attempt to introduce Kurdish armed groups into the confrontation would immediately affect relations with Turkey. 

The Kurdish question remains one of Ankara’s most sensitive national-security concerns, particularly because any significant Kurdish territorial or political gains in Iran or Iraq could have implications for Turkey’s own Kurdish population. 

Michael acknowledged that Turkish opposition would be substantial but argued that Ankara would not necessarily be able to prevent Kurdish groups from acting if they believed the regional conflict had created a historic opportunity.  

Ghanamizadeh Fallahi presented a sharply different view from Tehran. 

“They are counting on the Kurds inside Iran, but this is wrong,” he said. “The Kurds in Iran are not going to tie themselves to them.”, he added. He also suggested that Iran and Turkey could find overlapping interests in containing Kurdish separatist forces. 

The disagreement reflects a larger uncertainty surrounding any strategy based on Iran’s internal divisions. Ethnic grievances exist, but that does not automatically translate into support for a foreign military intervention. Nor does opposition to Tehran necessarily imply a willingness to participate in a campaign that could fragment the country. 

The pivotal role of Kharg Island

The possibility of a more limited US territorial operation, particularly against Kharg Island, presents a different strategic calculation. 

Kharg is important because of its role in Iran’s oil-export system. Seizing or neutralizing the island could theoretically deprive Tehran of a major economic asset while giving Washington additional bargaining power. 

But an operation that appears limited geographically could still produce region-wide consequences. “Seizing Kharg Island could deprive Tehran of its principal oil-export hub and give Washington a powerful bargaining asset,” King said. “It would not necessarily provide decisive leverage.” 

The difficulty would not simply be capturing territory. “Capturing an island is different from holding it against missiles, drones, mines, small boats and attacks launched from the nearby Iranian coast,” King said. “Iran could damage or destroy its own facilities rather than permit the United States to operate them,” he asserted. 

The strategic problem for Washington is therefore not only whether it could seize Kharg, but what would follow. 

An island operation could create a new military commitment requiring constant protection while simultaneously giving Tehran justification to widen its retaliation against American forces and Gulf infrastructure. “Tehran could also retaliate against Gulf oil terminals, desalination facilities, ports, US bases and commercial shipping,” King said. 

Such retaliation would place the Gulf states in an increasingly difficult position. 

Many Gulf governments have spent years attempting to maintain security relationships with Washington while simultaneously preserving channels with Tehran. But as military operations increasingly affect civilian infrastructure, energy exports, and maritime routes, the space for strategic hedging becomes narrower. 

Could Iran invade Kuwait or Bahrain?

The most extreme version of this dilemma emerged with Iranian warnings that a US ground operation could trigger an Iranian response involving Kuwait and potentially Bahrain. The feasibility of a conventional Iranian invasion remains deeply disputed. 

Willian I., an advisor at the US Department of State, expressed skepticism about Iran’s ability to take Kuwait while acknowledging the broader uncertainty surrounding the conflict. 

“Iran doesn’t have the capacity to take Kuwait. … It’s not impossible, but I don’t think it’s something that’s going to happen right now,” he told The Media Line. 

King similarly described a conventional Iranian occupation of Kuwait or Bahrain as militarily improbable. “Iran has no direct land border with Kuwait, meaning its forces would have to cross Iraqi territory or conduct a highly exposed amphibious operation,” he said. “Bahrain is an island hosting the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet, making an Iranian occupation attempt even more difficult.” 

But the distinction between occupation and a limited operation is crucial. Iran would not necessarily need to capture and hold an entire Gulf state to create a major strategic shock. 

“Missile and drone attacks, sabotage, infiltrations, attacks by aligned groups or a limited raid intended to capture American personnel are considerably more plausible,” King said. 

“If Tehran believed the survival of the state was at stake, it might accept extraordinary losses to attempt such an operation, but occupying either country would be beyond Iran’s realistic conventional capacity.”, he added. 

Michael also considered a conventional invasion unlikely but warned that Tehran could become less predictable if it believed the regime itself faced an existential threat. 

“They will do whatever they can do. They are not going to surrender, at least when it comes to this regime,” Michael said. 

“Until the end, I don’t see any surrender of this regime. And therefore, they will try even to use ground forces. But the probability that they will be succeeding in doing that is very low when it comes to Kuwait and to Bahrain,” he added. 

For Michael, an operation conducted through Iraqi militias would also face significant obstacles. 

“It’s not an idea that you push a button and then in three seconds you have the Iraqi militias in Kuwait,” he said. “It’s a logistical effort. It is something that takes time, something that creates a lot of noises for the intelligence to monitor it,”, he added. 

A large militia mobilization would have to cross Iraqi territory, potentially encounter opposition from Baghdad and expose itself to extensive American and regional intelligence surveillance. 

Yet the former Bahraini diplomat interviewed for this article, who requested that his identity and current affiliation remain undisclosed, argued that the danger should not be evaluated exclusively through the lens of conventional invasion. 

“The main aim could be to seize US bases, capture hostages, or just conduct temporary operations and withdraw,” he told The Media Line, while stressing that he was not a military expert and could not assess whether Iran or its allies had the capacity to conduct such an operation. 

His assessment points toward a broader characteristic of the conflict: limited actions can generate strategic consequences disproportionate to their military scale. 

A raid on a military installation, the capture of American personnel or a temporary incursion into a Gulf state could force Washington to respond rapidly even if Tehran had no intention of permanently occupying territory. 

King warned that the threshold for such a regional escalation could be crossed quickly. 

A high-casualty strike, an attempted seizure of a US installation or a ground incursion could bring American retaliation within hours and place the broader Gulf security architecture under pressure. 

Not every Gulf state would necessarily choose to join offensive operations, but as bases, intelligence facilities, air defenses and logistical networks across the Gulf became part of the conflict, remaining outside the war could become increasingly difficult. 

For the former Bahraini diplomat, the deeper question is therefore whether the current confrontation could ultimately expose structural limits in the Gulf’s dependence on American deterrence. 

“In my view, if the United States continues to escalate militarily but is unable to achieve a decisive strategic outcome against Iran and its allies through military operations alone, the Gulf states—including Bahrain—may eventually, and unfortunately, find themselves compelled to pursue a new regional security arrangement that accommodates Iran as an established stakeholder in the Gulf’s security architecture,” he said. 

“Such a development would not necessarily reflect a political preference, but rather a pragmatic adaptation to a changing regional balance of power,” he added. 

The Strait of Hormuz as a strategic weapon

For Washington, allowing Iran to maintain the ability to disrupt one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors carries both economic and geopolitical costs. 

For Tehran, the ability to threaten Hormuz represents one of its most important instruments of leverage against a militarily superior opponent. 

The former Bahraini diplomat argued that the conflict has already demonstrated how difficult it is for conventional military superiority to completely neutralize asymmetric pressure. 

“Despite its overwhelming military superiority, the United States appears unable to guarantee complete and economically sustainable control over the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has demonstrated that relatively low-cost asymmetric capabilities can repeatedly disrupt the Strait,” he said. 

“In this sense, the Strait of Hormuz has effectively become a strategic weapon in its own right—a geopolitical asset whose ability to disrupt global energy markets rivals the strategic impact traditionally associated with far more sophisticated military capabilities,” he added. 

Michael reached a similar conclusion regarding the strategic value Iran assigns to the waterway. 

“The current regime will never give up on the control of Hormuz because this is the ultimate and maybe the only strategic leverage that they have over the US,” he said. 

This creates what Michael described as a strategic impasse. 

Washington cannot easily end its campaign while appearing to accept continued Iranian pressure over Hormuz. Tehran, meanwhile, has little incentive to surrender one of the few instruments capable of imposing substantial economic costs far beyond the immediate battlefield. 

The Houthis block Saudi Arabia’s alternate route

The Houthis’ attacks against Saudi-linked tankers around Bab-el-Mandeb carry particular significance because the Red Sea represents an essential alternative route for Saudi Arabia at a time of instability around the Persian Gulf. 

If Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb come under simultaneous pressure, Riyadh faces a strategic problem that extends beyond individual attacks on ships. 

The issue becomes whether alternative export routes can genuinely provide protection when multiple maritime chokepoints are exposed to different but interconnected conflicts. 

Michael, however, cautioned against treating the Houthis as actors who simply execute Iranian orders. 

“They are not a classical Iranian proxy,” he said. “It is true that they support the Iranians. It’s true that they are willing and they are ready to be part of the resistance axis and to do some things that might help Iran. But they have their interests, they have their agenda, they have their aspirations,” he added. 

The distinction is important. 

A regional escalation does not require every actor to operate under a single command. Iran, the Houthis, Iraqi militias and other armed groups can pursue distinct interests while their actions simultaneously increase pressure on the same regional security architecture. 

This makes de-escalation harder because resolving one confrontation does not necessarily neutralize the others. 

Ghanamizadeh Fallahi also framed the current confrontation as part of a larger struggle over the future of the American role in the Middle East. 

“You know, both Iran and the United States want the withdrawal of the US military presence from the Middle East, but the United States wants this withdrawal to end with the absorption of Iran into its new economic ecosystem,” he said. 

“If the United States initiates a ground operation and fails, the Middle East will be over for Trump forever,” he added. 

His assessment reflects a broader Iranian argument that a failed American ground campaign would have consequences beyond Iran, potentially weakening US deterrence and accelerating the wider erosion of Washington’s regional position. 

From another perspective, however, precisely that reputational question could make disengagement more difficult for Washington. 

If the United States has made freedom of navigation and control of escalation around Hormuz a central objective, ending the confrontation without achieving a visible strategic result could carry high political costs. 

The result is a conflict in which both sides may recognize the dangers of escalation yet believe that backing down carries unacceptable consequences. 

Could Israel Get Involved?

Although it has been absent from the latest phase of direct American-Iranian exchanges, the reopening of shelters in several Israeli municipalities has renewed speculation over whether it could soon find itself involved again. 

The shelter decisions alone should not be interpreted as proof of an imminent Iranian attack. Municipal authorities have strong reasons to prepare for contingencies when ballistic-missile warning times are limited. 

King said the significance of the measures would increase only if they were accompanied by broader national military preparations. 

“A local shelter decision is not, by itself, proof that Israel has intelligence of an imminent Iranian strike,” he said. 

“The assessment would become more serious if Israel’s Home Front Command changed national guidance, reserve and air-defense deployments increased, American-Israeli military coordination intensified, or multiple municipalities simultaneously took similar measures,” he added. 

Yet the possibility of renewed Israeli intervention cannot be separated from the wider trajectory of the war. 

Michael believes that Israel is increasingly likely to find itself drawn back into the confrontation, but he also identified a significant difference between Israeli and American strategic priorities. 

“If we are talking about probabilities, there is a higher probability that Israel will find itself involved,” Michael said. “I think that this is not in the Israeli interest currently. I think that Israel prefers that the Americans will do what they have to do,” he added. 

The problem, he argued, is that Washington’s immediate focus and Israel’s strategic objectives are not necessarily identical. 

“Israel is interested in other issues. Hormuz is not an Israeli issue,” Michael said. “Israel is interested in eliminating, first, the nuclear capabilities of Iran, secondly, the ballistic missiles, thirdly, all the idea of the proxies,” he added. 

This creates two very different paths toward Israeli involvement. 

Iran could attack Israel directly, forcing Jerusalem to respond and potentially giving the Israeli military greater freedom to pursue its own strategic priorities. 

Alternatively, Washington could ask Israel to join an American-led operation whose principal objective remains different from Israel’s own. 

In the second scenario, Israel could find itself assuming substantial military risks in support of American objectives while gaining less freedom to determine when and how the campaign ends. 

The danger is that any of the current fronts could trigger another. 

A US move against Kharg Island could prompt attacks against Gulf oil, water and military infrastructure. 

An attempt to mobilize Kurdish or Baluch forces could transform an interstate war into an ethnic and territorial conflict inside Iran while creating new tensions with Turkey and Iraq. 

An Iranian raid against Kuwait, Bahrain, or an American military installation could trigger a rapid US response even without any realistic Iranian ability to permanently occupy territory. 

Continued Houthi pressure around Bab-el-Mandeb could reduce Saudi Arabia’s ability to compensate for disruption in Hormuz. 

And a renewed Iranian attack on Israel could return the Israeli military to the center of a war whose objectives have already expanded well beyond the confrontation that initially brought Washington and Tehran into direct conflict. 

For King, the central danger remains that military pressure is interpreted differently on each side. 

“The central danger is miscalculation,” he said. “Washington may believe additional pressure will force negotiations, while Tehran may interpret the same pressure as preparation for regime destruction,” he added. 

“Once either side adopts the second interpretation, military decisions will be driven by survival rather than bargaining, and the conflict could become region-wide with very little warning,” he added.

For now, there is still no publicly established evidence that Washington has decided to launch a large-scale ground invasion of Iran. 

But that may no longer be the only relevant threshold. 

The more significant question is whether increasingly discussed territorial options—an island seizure, a special operation, support for Kurdish or other armed groups, or limited Iranian operations against neighboring states—could gradually move from contingency planning into action as both sides search for new forms of leverage. 

The conflict is therefore becoming dangerous not only because Washington or Tehran may deliberately choose a wider war, but because each successive attempt to increase pressure reduces the space available for the other side to absorb the attack without responding. 

Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Gulf infrastructure, Iran’s internal ethnic divisions, the future of the American military presence and the possibility of renewed Israeli involvement are no longer entirely separate questions. 

They are increasingly becoming different fronts of the same strategic confrontation. 

And the closer those fronts come to intersecting, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between coercion designed to force an agreement and escalation that makes an agreement impossible. 

Slouching in a Jerusalem multiplex’s deep, red chairs, the audience watching Christoper Nolan’s blockbuster The Odyssey was shaken violently, as the 4D seats tried to help us feel what Odysseus and his men felt after Poseidon sparked the storm that only Odysseus survived.  

This veteran film buff had never been to such a screening, and his recommendation is to avoid it. If a movie is bad, no external pyrotechnics will save it; if it’s good, it won’t need such non-filmic help. And Nolan’s rendition of Homer’s epic is more than just good, as the $250 million it has grossed in hardly two weeks attests. 

Yes, its anachronisms are numerous, and often glaring. Homer and his contemporaries didn’t say “civilization”; they did not call their era the Bronze Age; and they never crowned a black queen, as Nolan did by casting Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy, ignoring not only ancient Greece’s conditions and norms, but also the latter’s textual description as “white armed.” 

The debate about the film’s historical value is thus valid. Claiming that the Trojan War was about trade routes is a thought taken not from Homer, but from the current nightly news. And attaching to Odysseus a guilt trip over having cheated Troy with his wooden-horse trick is about as realistic as a remorseful Donald Trump losing sleep over his election-fraud canards. 

Even so, the film is compelling, and that is where its significance lies. In an age when literature is elbowed daily by the soundbite, the emoji, and the tweet, Nolan’s creation will familiarize tens of millions with one of Western civilization’s foundational works. 

For this to be achieved, Nolan’s mastery of his medium and his ability to shift its story to a contemporary audience could not suffice. Homer’s own talent was equally crucial, as was the power of his narrative, a story whose energy survived the passage of some 3,000 years. 

Written roughly in the time of Isaiah, this work had nothing to do with the Jews. Its narrative, however, sure is relevant to the Jews, as their own narrative comes under assault. 

The Odyssey and the Jewish homecoming

The Odyssey is powerful because it is a story of homecoming. Anyone who has ever followed a departed lover, relative, friend, or role model’s journey to the unknown will be captured by its plot. 

As children raised by Holocaust survivors, we begged to be told stories about “the war,” not because we had any idea what those stories really told, much less what they meant, but because those travails were supposed to be great stories. 

Our hopes to debrief the survivors around us were repeatedly dashed, but we knew enough to understand that their stories contained any odyssey’s three parts: calamity, survival, victory. Decades later, while piecing together those untold stories, we realized they were, like The Odyssey, tales of homecoming. 

The homecoming tale’s combination of misfortune, struggle, and poetic justice is why millions, over the centuries, loved reading The Odyssey. When they read how the hero’s ship got wrecked, how he grappled with longing for his wife Penelope while in Calypso’s captivity, how he and his men were trapped by the one-eyed Cyclops, or how they navigated their ship between the multi-headed monster Scylla and the sucking whirlpool Charybdis – readers were gripped by the adventure, and drawn to read on to the story’s rewarding end. 

All this suspense, pace, and overarching destination survived the ancient poem’s latest adaptation, despite its toying with Homer’s narrative and with his era’s knowledge, lingo, and norms. And if Homer’s narrative survived time’s transitions – so will ours.

The Jewish people’s story as The Odyssey’s inversion. 

Yes, Jewish mythology has a cross-desert journey checkered with supernatural events, a story about a mighty giant struck in the middle of his forehead, and homecoming tales, like Jacob’s journey to Iraq and back. 

However, Judaism’s foundational story, as philosopher Michael Waltzer observed in Exodus and Revolution (1986), is not The Odyssey’s cyclical route but the linear route of the Exodus, whose participants depart not in the hope of returning to their journey’s point of origin, but while sworn to never see it again. 

In this story, the unknown is even more ominous than in Homer’s tale, because its Israelite heroes’ encounter with their journey’s horrors is not the result of a journey from the wilderness to the homeland, but of a deliberate departure to the wilderness from the land where they were born. 

Still, the Israelites’ successors, the Jews, do have a story about a cyclical journey’s departure from, and resolve to return, home. 

The quest to return home, which in the Homerian tale was the story of one man, is in Jewish history the story of an entire nation. And what for Odysseus lasted one decade has been the Jewish experience for centuries. And the actual return, which in his case lasted hardly two weeks from his reemergence in Ithaca, has been the Jewish story for nearly 150 years, and may take another 150 years until this homecoming tale finally reaches its end. 

The Jewish people’s return to their ancient land, then, has the same makings of a powerful story that made The Odyssey the classic that it is. The only difference is that the Jewish story’s factuality is much clearer, and that its third part is unfolding against the world’s eyes.

Now, like the suitors who tried to wrest Odysseus’s wife, land, and crown, and when faced with Odysseus challenged his narrative, insisting he had died and his adventures were myth – the Jewish odyssey’s discontents are doing the same thing, claiming that what the Jews endured while abroad never happened, and that the Jewish nation is long dead. 

Psychologically, it’s an understandable reception for an absentee assumed dead. Politically, it’s a recipe for defeat. Ask Homer. 

www.MiddleIsrael.net

The writer, a Hartman Institute fellow, is the author of the bestseller, The Jewish March of Folly (Yedioth Books 2026), now available in English on Amazon.

The Defense Ministry and the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces (FIDF) earlier this month signed an agreement to establish a modern rehabilitation center for army veterans with traumatic brain injuries.

The agreement comes days after the Israeli government approved an overhaul of the rehabilitation system for wounded IDF soldiers. 

Since October 7, over 26,000 wounded IDF soldiers and security personnel have needed treatment, according to the Defense Ministry.

Of them, over 300 soldiers who have sustained traumatic brain injuries, with roughly a third needing more intensive and long-term care, which this rehabilitation center is designed to provide.

The new facility, encompassing 2,560-square-meters, will replace the older Beit Marguza facility in Jaffa, which was built in 1973 and does not meet modern accessibility standards. It is expected to accommodate roughly 60 veterans.

It will be located in Tel Aviv, serving as the only center in Israel dedicated exclusively to the rehabilitation of IDF veterans with brain trauma. It is expected to be completed in 2030.

The center will offer both short-term and long-term recovery treatements through rehabilitation services, including occupational therapy, social work, and cognitive rehabilitation.

The center will also have several outdoor spaces, balconies, and a rooftop terrace for community programming, as well as dedicated parking and protected spaces.

Brain injuries: Traumatic, invisible wounds

The FIDF, a non-profit organization whose mission is to support Israeli soldiers, has committed $10 million of the $24 million required to complete the project. Permits have already been approved, and the project’s final preparations ahead of construction are underway.

“Our responsibility to Israel’s wounded veterans does not end when they leave the battlefield. Traumatic brain injuries are often described as invisible wounds because their effects extend far beyond physical symptoms,” said FIDF CEO Maj.-Gen. (res.) Nadav Padan. 

“Veterans living with severe brain injuries frequently face long-term neurological, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral challenges that require sustained, specialized intervention.”

He added that the new center will address these needs with an “integrated rehabilitation model that combines therapeutic, educational, vocational and social services under one roof.”

The center will provide veterans with the “comprehensive care, dignity, and long-term support they deserve while ensuring Israel is prepared to meet the rehabilitation challenges of today and the future.”

“The new rehabilitation center marks a milestone in the care provided to Israel’s most severely wounded veterans,” said Ronit Senderovitch, Head of Clinical Social Services at the Defense Ministry’s Rehabilitation Department. “The center will unite world-leading treatments and technologies under one roof, in a modern, accessible, and dignified setting.”

“Ensuring these individuals receive the finest possible care on their path back to life and community is both a national and moral obligation.”

Iran has managed to rebuild infrastructure damaged in US and Israeli airstrikes faster than expected, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing satellite imagery of several Iranian military sites.

In one instance, the Wall Street Journal noted that satellite imagery from Planet Labs in March showed two tunnel entrances to a reported Iranian missile base, and the adjoining access road that had been damaged by airstrikes near Kangavar in western Iran.

According to the Wall Street Journal, satellite imagery accessed through Airbus weeks later showed freshly excavated entrances and a paved road where the destruction had been. 

In another case, the Wall Street Journal quoted an Israeli military official saying that Iran had succeeded in repairing a bridge that had been destroyed days prior.

Planet Labs satellite images, dated to the beginning of July, also showed partial reconstruction efforts at a shipyard in the port of Bandar Anzali on the Caspian Sea, a site affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In March, the IDF announced it had struck several Iranian naval targets in the Caspian Sea, including a major Iranian Navy port, at which dozens of ships were destroyed.

Prominently among the destroyed vessels were four missile ships equipped with air defenses and anti-submarine missiles, as well as a corvette warship.

“They refilled their stockpiles,” the Wall Street Journal quoted former IDF air defense chief Brig.-Gen. Ran Kochav as saying. “They have very impressive industrialization and reconstruction capabilities.”

He added that Iran’s rapid recovery is “consistent with skills Iran demonstrated in rebuilding its infrastructure and missile stockpile after the 12-day Israel-Iran war last June.”

Israel and the US had often only succeeded in collapsing the surface-level entrances to Iran’s missile bases rather than fully destroying them, the Wall Street Journal reported, meaning that Iran’s weapons stores had been left untouched and waiting to be dug up. 

Additional satellite imagery from Planet Labs of an Iranian missile base in Dezful, a city in southwestern Iran, that had been struck by Israel in June 2025 and in March 2026, showed that the base’s entrances had been buried. 

However, footage from Airbus three months later reportedly showed Iran already excavating multiple tunnel entrances at the site.

Satellite footage from another Iranian base in Kermanshah showed similar activity. 

Images from the beginning of June showed construction and rebuilding efforts already underway, after the site had been struck at the start of Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion.

More recently, images from Planet Labs have shown partial reconstruction efforts taking place at Raja Shimi Industries near Tehran, according to a report from King’s College London, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Raja Shimi Industries is reportedly involved in producing missile parts.

Jim Lamson, a visiting research fellow at King’s College London and former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who wrote the report, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying that facilities that make more advanced missile parts, like carbon fiber, could take Iran months or years to rebuild.

However, Lansom noted that it is possible Iran could have stockpiled such components at underground facilities to use in the short term.

Iran moved thousands of uranium centrifuges into fortified Pickaxe Mountain

Iran transferred thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges to underground facilities deep inside Natanz’s Pickaxe Mountain last fall, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing Israeli and US officials.

The centrifuges were transferred to the mountain following the 12-day war in June 2025.

During the war, American and Israeli strikes pummeled three of Iran’s main nuclear sites, in an operation the US called “Midnight Hammer.”

US and Israeli officials noted that the transfer of sensitive equipment inside the mountain increases concerns that Tehran is working to ensure continued uranium enrichment, even in the event of a large-scale military attack on its soil.

Pickaxe Mountain is located south of the Natanz nuclear complex, the site of two of Iran’s uranium enrichment plants bombed in June 2025.

Tzvi Jasper and Idan Kweller contributed to this report.

Historically, Lebanon is the land where the best-laid plans go to die.

Israel has repeatedly convinced itself that it has finally found the formula for stability to its North. In the early years of the state, many believed Lebanon – as the forward-looking “Switzerland of the Middle East” – would become the first Arab state to make peace with Israel. In the 1980s, prime minister Menachem Begin believed president Bashir Gemayel could deliver that peace. Later, Israel concluded that a security zone in southern Lebanon would ensure lasting quiet.

None of those assumptions survived contact with Lebanon’s reality. Again and again, it has proven wrong those convinced they had finally found the formula for stability.

Israelis, therefore, have good reason to greet with skepticism the launch this week of a pilot program under which the IDF withdraws from villages in southern Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) move in, clear out Hezbollah, and gradually reassert Beirut’s sovereignty.

History is not the only reason for caution. After all, this is the Middle East, where powerful regional and outside forces with conflicting interests lurk seemingly around every corner, intent on tripping up any progress.

‘Land for arms’

Nevertheless, what happened this week was a tiny – but potentially significant – step forward.

On Tuesday, Lebanese army troops deployed in the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh in the Nabatieh region after the IDF withdrew from the area. It was the first of several pilot zones Israel is to evacuate under a framework agreement reached with Lebanon under American auspices in late June.

What makes that agreement potentially historic is that it goes well beyond another temporary ceasefire. A product of five rounds of the first direct political negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in more than 40 years, it establishes a permanent security framework by explicitly linking Israeli withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Call it land for arms.

That linkage is what distinguishes this initiative from nearly every previous attempt to stabilize southern Lebanon.

Earlier efforts focused primarily on changing Israel’s behavior – persuading it to withdraw, relying on international peacekeepers, or assuming that time itself would somehow calm the border.

This framework instead seeks to change Lebanon’s behavior by making Israeli withdrawal contingent on Hezbollah’s removal. Whether that formula succeeds remains to be seen, but it represents a fundamentally different framework.

Under the agreement, Israel will withdraw from territory it captured to establish a buffer zone only after Hezbollah has been verifiably removed from those areas. In accepting that formula, the Lebanese government has effectively acknowledged for the first time that Hezbollah’s weapons are the principal obstacle to a full Israeli withdrawal.

Trump calls deal great agreement

That commitment was reinforced publicly on Tuesday when Lebanese President Joseph Aoun met US President Donald Trump at the White House. Trump described the arrangement as “a great agreement” and said Israel was already “in the process” of redeploying its forces.

Even more significant were Aoun’s own remarks. Asked about criticism from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who termed the agreement “sedition,” Aoun dismissed suggestions that the agreement required parliamentary approval, saying it was a constitutional prerogative of the presidency and declaring simply, “We are committed to it.”

Another important innovation is that this time the United States – not the notoriously ineffective UNIFIL – is responsible for overseeing implementation and verification.

The agreement is significant for another reason. It shifted the Israeli-Lebanese conflict from the border and southern Lebanon into a question of who controls the Lebanese state.

Will Lebanon emerge as a normal, sovereign, Western-backed state exercising an exclusive monopoly over military force? Or will it remain subordinate to Hezbollah, whose independent arsenal and Iranian patronage have long eclipsed the authority of the state?

The agreement, in effect, forces Lebanon to decide what kind of country it wants to become. And here there have been several encouraging developments that Israel would be wise to encourage.

Hezbollah weakened

Unlike previous rounds of diplomacy, this initiative comes after Hezbollah has suffered major military, political, and financial setbacks. The organization has by no means disappeared, but it can no longer dictate Lebanon’s national agenda as it did in the past.

That weakening – as well as the weakening of Iran – helped create the political conditions that brought to power both a president and a prime minister who appear genuinely committed to restoring the state’s sovereignty at Hezbollah’s expense.

Desire, however, is one thing. Ability is another.

The central question now is not whether Beirut wants to disarm Hezbollah. It is whether it has the will, the ability – or both – to do so.

It is precisely Israel’s skepticism that Aoun can translate those intentions into reality that explains Jerusalem’s caution.

Aoun himself implicitly acknowledged the tremendous challenge during his White House meeting with Trump. He said he had asked the American president for only two things: continued political backing and support for the Lebanese Armed Forces, which he described as “the backbone of security and stability.”

Without a strong Lebanese army, he warned, “everything will collapse,” recalling that when the army disintegrated in 1975, militias filled the vacuum and southern Lebanon became a launching pad for Palestinian attacks against Israel.

Trump responded with an unusually strong public endorsement. “I fully trust the LAF. I fully trust the leadership of the LAF,” he said. He also praised the agreement with Israel as “a great step forward.”

That public vote of confidence matters. Unlike previous Lebanon initiatives, Washington has invested significant political capital in the current process and in trying to establish the LAF as the country’s sole legitimate military authority, replacing Hezbollah rather than coexisting alongside it.

But there is still a significant gap between Washington’s confidence and the realities on the ground. The LAF may, as Aoun said alongside Trump, be the country’s most respected national institution, but it is not currently equipped or financed to wage a sustained campaign against an organization as well entrenched and with as much firepower as Hezbollah.

LAF Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal has warned that the army lacks the resources needed to implement such a mission, while years of economic collapse have left its soldiers poorly paid and the institution heavily dependent on foreign support. He warned that attempting to forcibly dismantle Hezbollah, a Shi’a terror group, could place an enormous strain on the army itself – which is made up of Sunni, Christian and Shi’a soldiers – and risk reopening Lebanon’s internal sectarian fault lines.

Agreement places US in charge of verification

For Jerusalem, however, the strategic value of this framework lies not just in its text, but in its architecture. Unlike previous diplomatic attempts that collapsed under the weight of weak international coalitions unwilling to confront Hezbollah, this agreement intentionally positions the US – not France or UN-led peacekeepers – in charge of the verification mechanism.

Israel has long viewed Paris with deep suspicion when it comes to Lebanon, seeing French policy as overly accommodating toward Hezbollah’s political wing. This is to say nothing of the distrust engendered by what Jerusalem views as France’s one-sided policies when it comes to the Palestinians.

By contrast, this framework is Washington-centric and will utilize US Central Command (CENTCOM) to actively verify that Hezbollah has been removed from an area before Israel moves out. In Israel’s eyes, American oversight means that a failure by the LAF to clear out a missile cache will actually carry diplomatic and financial consequences, rather than being buried in a routine UNIFIL complaint file.

Yet even the best American verification mechanism cannot compensate for a Lebanese army that lacks the resources to carry out the mission. And this is where the plan hits a wall.

While some envisioned Saudi Arabia stepping in to help bankroll the plan and fund the LAF, Riyadh’s actual contribution has been confined to low-cost diplomatic theater. A decade after choking off a landmark $3 billion defense grant to Lebanon due to Hezbollah’s dominance, the Saudis are now offering more diplomatic cover than hard cash.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) provided some economic help on June 11 by lifting a five-year trade ban, and even phoned Aoun on the eve of his White House trip to endorse the plan. But none of that substitutes for actually writing checks, and the Saudis have pointedly not opened up their wallets to pay LAF soldiers’ salaries or buy new military hardware.

That is why Israeli skepticism persists. The question is not whether Aoun wants to strengthen the Lebanese state. It is whether the army – the state’s principal instrument of power – is strong enough and has enough money to carry out the task.

There are, therefore, ample reasons to be skeptical. But there are also a few reasons to be cautiously optimistic: a substantially weakened Hezbollah and Iran, a Lebanese leadership publicly acknowledging that Hezbollah’s weapons are the problem, an American administration deeply invested in the agreement’s success, and an Israeli withdrawal explicitly conditioned on Hezbollah’s removal.

Whether those new realities will finally overcome Lebanon’s long history of frustrating even the best-laid plans remains to be seen. But by pulling out of Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh on Tuesday, Israel signaled that despite all the reasons for doubt, it believes this framework is worth putting to the test.

The US-Israel relationship has rarely been stronger militarily – even if at the same time, it currently seems strained politically.

On the one hand, ask almost any senior IDF officer – from the chief of staff down – and they will tell you that cooperation with the United States military, particularly the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), has never been closer.

The American military presence in Israel is unprecedented, with personnel deployed at Air Force bases and other locations across the country. 

Discussions are already underway about turning parts of this deployment into a more permanent presence, one that would include joint analysis of enemies and targets, enhanced intelligence sharing, and expanded training in Israel and neighboring countries alongside American and other allied militaries.

Yet, while at the operational level, the relationship between both countries is extraordinarily close, at the political level a very different picture is emerging.

It is no secret that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have limited influence over decision-making in Washington right now, particularly when it comes to Iran. 

While the US is attacking Iran every night, Israel has been ordered to sit on the sidelines. It has not even been invited to join the operation in the Strait of Hormuz, even as the US openly calls on other nations to do so.

And then there were Vice President JD Vance’s comments this week on Joe Rogan’s podcast – specifically his accusations that Israel has been running a campaign against him personally to pressure the US into widening the war with Iran.
 
This can only be described as a Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)-like precision strike against the foundations of the US-Israel alliance.

These were not the comments of a fringe commentator or an isolationist member of Congress. They came from the vice president of the United States, a leading contender to inherit the MAGA movement and potentially the presidency itself.

Then there was President Donald Trump’s apparent decision to move ahead with the sale of the fifth-generation F-35 to Turkey, which would make it only the second country in the region, after Israel, to operate the stealth aircraft.

Add to that Wednesday night’s signing of an agreement on a civilian nuclear program with Saudi Arabia – initially announced without connection to the Abraham Accords, something Trump later clarified was in fact connected – and it is hard to escape the conclusion that Israel has, at least for the moment, been pushed somewhat to the side.

The F-35 sale to Turkey will directly challenge Israel’s qualitative military edge. It is possible that Ankara will receive a modified version of the aircraft with capabilities slightly inferior to those of the Israeli fleet. 

It is also possible that Israel will be compensated with technological upgrades, new weapons systems, or other capabilities designed to preserve its advantage.

But none of that changes the broader strategic reality. Turkey is a dominant power in the region whose leader has a close relationship with Trump.

The Saudi agreement is no less consequential. A civilian nuclear program was originally supposed to be one of Washington’s primary cards for drawing Riyadh into a normalization agreement with Israel. Even though Trump has said that it is connected to the Abraham Accords, time will tell. For now, Saudi Arabia is saying that it will not normalize relations as long as Israel remains in a state of conflict in Gaza.

Could something more be happening beneath the surface, beyond what the public – and perhaps even many government officials – currently know? 

Of course. The Abraham Accords themselves were known to only a small number of people before their announcement in August 2020. It is possible that the Saudi nuclear agreement is one piece of a broader process that will eventually lead to normalization with Israel.

But as of now, there is no indication that this is the case.

Even if such a process were underway, it is difficult to imagine what Israel’s contribution could currently be. The idea that this government, particularly in the run-up to the upcoming election, could meaningfully advance a political process with the Palestinians is detached from political reality.

Netanyahu cannot afford to make any serious concessions at the same time that he is fighting for his political survival. 

Any move that could be portrayed as a concession to the Palestinians runs the risk of alienating even his most loyal and dedicated followers.

Add to the mix recent meetings Trump has had with Arab leaders while refusing to schedule a meeting with Netanyahu (it is possible that something will change on that front next week, now that the funeral plans for the late Sen. Lindsey Graham have been announced).

This week, President Joseph Aoun became the first Lebanese head of state to visit the White House in almost two decades. The week before, Trump hosted Iraq’s new prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi. 

Earlier this month, Trump met with Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former al-Qaeda jihadist who now serves as president of Syria, on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara.

Taken individually, each meeting can be explained. Viewed together, they begin to form a pattern, one that does not include Israel.

Israel’s victories, others’ diplomacy

Ironically, though, while Israel might be left out of the room, the fact that cannot be ignored is that many of the regional changes that these leaders are discussing with Trump would not have come about had it not been for Israel.

Zaidi is working closely with the US to weaken and dismantle Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. Sharaa would almost certainly not have come to power had Israel not devastated the Iranian axis and, in particular, Hezbollah. 

Aoun would not be treated as a regional leader worthy of presidential attention had Israel not dramatically weakened Hezbollah and created an opening for the Lebanese state to begin asserting itself.

That opening has now led to a new pilot program under which the IDF has started withdrawing from several villages in southern Lebanon and allowing the Lebanese Armed Forces to try to take control and prevent Hezbollah from returning.

Over the last three years, Israel weakened Iran, shattered Hezbollah, helped bring about the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, struck the Houthis in Yemen, and severely degraded Hamas in Gaza. 

The scale of the transformation is difficult to overstate.

Which raises the obvious question: How is it that Israel, after paying such a tremendous price and doing so much to transform the region, now appears to be sidelined from some of the diplomacy and strategic planning that this transformation has made possible?

Whether it is the emerging American relationships with Lebanon and Iraq, negotiations over Iran, the Saudi nuclear agreement, Turkey’s return to the F-35 program, or even the future of Gaza, Israel increasingly appears to be watching others shape the regional order.

The answer is not that Israel has suddenly become militarily irrelevant. The unprecedented cooperation with CENTCOM proves the opposite.

Instead, the problem appears to be political. After a meeting this week between representatives of the Board of Peace and Netanyahu, it became strikingly clear to its members that almost nothing significant will move forward while Israel remains in an election cycle.

Of all the unresolved issues, Gaza is the most politically explosive for Netanyahu.

Any step – even something as limited as allowing caravans into Gaza to provide temporary shelter for displaced civilians – risks being framed by his coalition partners and political rivals as a concession. 

Ahead of an election, Netanyahu will not take that risk.

Israel, therefore, finds itself in a deeply troubling position. Its soldiers have created new opportunities across the Middle East, but its political leadership is having trouble converting those achievements into formidable strategic gains.

Military power can weaken enemies, destroy infrastructure, and open diplomatic doors. It cannot, by itself, decide what lies on the other side. 

That requires political initiative, creativity, and a government capable of looking beyond the next election. Without this, Israel risks discovering that it fought the wars, paid the price, and transformed the region – only for others to write the new Middle East without it.

The writer is a co-founder of the MEAD Summit, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, and the former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His latest book (with Amir Bohbot), While Israel Slept, is a bestseller in the United States.

From the 33 startups chosen to participate in Google’s Gemini Startup Forum: Cybersecurity, one-third of them are Israeli, the cyber giant announced on Wednesday.

In total, eight startups were fully developed in Israel, while another three are currently led by Israeli entrepreneurs.

Already known as a global cybersecurity powerhouse, Israel further reinforces its position at the forefront of cybersecurity innovation, especially in a field increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence.

This is reflected in the composition of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, which has approximately 25% of its total market capitalization invested in cybersecurity companies.

What is Google’s Gemini Startup Forum: Cybersecurity?

The companies were selected to participate in Google’s Gemini Startup Forum: Cybersecurity, an event that will enable them to work with Google’s top experts to develop new autonomous defense solutions. 

Other participating companies are from the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Poland, and Spain.

Participants will gain direct access to Google’s most advanced AI infrastructure, language models, and cloud tools, while working closely with experts from Google Cloud, Google DeepMind, and Wiz to build autonomous defense systems capable of handling complex threats. 

“The goal of the forum is to accelerate the development of AI-based cybersecurity companies,” Google said in a statement. “The selected startups will be granted direct access to Google’s most advanced infrastructure, tools and language models.”

The 11 startups that will participate in Google’s program

The startups selected specialized in five different areas in the field of cybersecurity: Control and management of AI agents; security and vulnerability management; cloud, network, and infrastructure security; data protection; and SOC automation and offensive security.

Capsule Security is one of the participants, offering a platform that provides real-time protection and behavioral monitoring for autonomous AI agents. Onyx Security, also from the same area of expertise, offers a central control plane for discovering, managing, and monitoring autonomous AI agents in organizations. Alt Security has developed a platform that uses AI agents in the process of intelligence collection and cross-referencing security vulnerabilities to identify critical business risks.

Two companies operate in cloud, network, and infrastructure security, with Native serving as a central security system for companies operating across multiple cloud providers, while QIZ Security manages encryption assets and regulatory requirements, offering a unified panel.

In terms of offensive security, the selected startup is Meta Security, a company that uses AI to decrease the amount of false positives detected by existing security systems.

The three companies led by Israeli entrepreneurs but not based in Israel are Bold Security, Jazz, and ORION Security, all working in data protection and endpoint security.

The prominence of Israeli companies in the cohort indicates that the country’s cybersecurity ecosystem remains at the top. The ecosystem has long been fueled by elite military technology units, a dense network of experienced entrepreneurs, and a culture that encourages rapid experimentation.

Defense strategies that once relied on manual monitoring, static rules, and human‑driven response are rapidly giving way to systems powered by autonomous AI agents. The selection of so many Israeli companies for Google’s new program shows that Israel is not merely adapting to the AI‑security revolution, but it is helping shape it.

US President Donald Trump will address the White House Correspondents’ Association at a rescheduled dinner on Friday, nearly three months after a shooting at the Washington Hilton hotel interrupted the event.

The black-tie gathering of journalists, politicians and administration officials was called off on April 25 after a man tried to force his way through a security checkpoint and fired a shotgun outside the ballroom where Trump and members of his cabinet were taking their seats.

The suspect, Cole Allen, pleaded not guilty in May to charges including attempting to assassinate the president.

The dinner has been moved to the Waldorf Astoria hotel and will take place under heightened security.

Secret Service Director Sean Curran told reporters Wednesday that an advance team was implementing a comprehensive security plan at the hotel.

“We do expect bad people to show up,” Curran said. “It’s just a reality of where we are, but we’re treating it no differently than any other site that the president goes to.”

Shooting shows necessity of White House ballroom

Trump has said the shooting in April showed the need for a $400 million ballroom being built at the White House, saying that holding such events there would increase the president’s security.

Friday’s dinner will honor Secret Service officer Victor Gonzales, who was shot at a security checkpoint outside the ballroom in April and credited with stopping the attack. He was wearing a protective vest and was the only person injured that night. Washington Hilton staff who assisted guests will also be recognized, the WHCA said.

The gala, an annual fixture on Washington’s calendar for more than a century, raises money for journalism scholarships and celebrates the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press. Trump is scheduled to deliver remarks, and mentalist Oz Pearlman will provide entertainment.

The April incident occurred during Trump’s first presidential appearance at the correspondents’ dinner. He had boycotted the event in his previous years in office.

Trump has frequently clashed with the news media, suing multiple outlets, denouncing unfavorable coverage as “fake news” and criticizing journalists by name. His administration has barred the Associated Press from the White House press pool and restricted some journalists’ access to the Pentagon, among other measures.

Trump threatens to revoke network licenses

Last week, Trump threatened to revoke the licenses of TV networks that did not air his prime-time speech about election security, which included claims about foreign election interference that contradicted a US intelligence assessment.

The White House has defended its measures, saying the administration seeks to protect sensitive information, improve security and increase accountability for what it calls biased media organizations.

Even as Trump has escalated his actions against the media, he has provided reporters with more direct access than recent presidents, taking questions during open-ended public appearances and regularly speaking with journalists by phone.

Several hundred veteran journalists, along with eight professional journalism organizations, have signed a letter urging the WHCA to use the dinner to condemn what they called Trump’s attacks on the First Amendment.

WHCA President Weijia Jiang said the event “will be a statement that violence has no place in American life and a free press will not be intimidated into silence.”

In the span of a few hours, Hillel International filed, then withdrew, an amicus brief supporting Harvard University in its ongoing legal battle with the Trump administration over campus antisemitism enforcement procedures.

A representative for the Hillel parent organization told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the original 22-page brief filed on Wednesday “was filed without having gone through our internal review process.” They did not elaborate further.

The whiplash further complicated institutional Jewish efforts to address campus antisemitism while sounding an alarm about some of the government’s aggressive enforcement mechanisms. 

In its since-withdrawn brief, Hillel had argued that Harvard has improved in its response to antisemitism, also asserting that the Trump administration’s moves to defund the school “do not help Jewish students or improve the campus climate.” 

“To the contrary, they disproportionately impact the very Jewish students and Jewish researchers the government purportedly seeks to help,” the brief continued. It followed Harvard’s own brief in the case, which centers on federal efforts to cite antisemitism as grounds to freeze more than $2 billion in US Health and Human Services contracts and grants.

Hillel withdraws amicus brief backing Harvard against Trump

Jewish legacy groups have sought to straddle their demands for a crackdown on campus antisemitism with concerns that the Trump administration’s threats of massive cuts could harm research and students.

The brief had been signed by Mark Rotenberg, Hillel International’s general counsel and head of its Campus Climate Initiative, as well as by attorney David Zimmer. Neither Rotenberg nor Zimmer immediately returned requests for comment.

Harvard Hillel, which is independent from Hillel International, told JTA in a statement that it had nothing to do with either the decision to file or withdraw the brief.

“We hope that this dispute between Harvard and our government soon comes to a resolution that safeguards the rights of Harvard’s Jewish students and faculty, strengthens the university’s academic mission, and advances the preeminence of American research and industry,” a Harvard Hillel spokesperson said.

Hillel’s defense of Harvard in the case had immediately proved controversial. Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Jewish Harvard alum turned conservative campus activist, had castigated Hillel for the brief and urged Jews to stop donating to the organization on social media Wednesday evening, shortly before the group announced it was withdrawing the brief.

“I encourage Jewish donors to pull their funding and support from Hillel and instead support organizations that positively impact the Jewish future,” Kestenbaum wrote on Facebook in response to the amicus brief. “It’s clear that Hillel does not want to reform.”

Kestenbaum later told JTA, “It’s increasingly obvious to any donor who wants to have an honest conversation with American Jewish students that a significant amount of the Jewish establishment is failing in that mission.”

He also had harsh words for Harvard Hillel, accusing the organization of having discouraged an undergraduate student from flying an Israeli flag, among other allegations. 

In response, a Harvard Hillel representative did not address Kestenbaum’s specific allegations. The representative told JTA that the organization “decisively improves the lives of Jewish students, and Harvard as a whole. For anyone who cares about defeating antisemitism at Harvard — there is no better allocation of your resources than supporting Harvard Hillel.” 

I have a confession to make. I am terrible with names. I might remember that someone has a biblical name, but whether it’s Rachel or Rebecca escapes me, and Shlomo and Shmuel are at similar risk of being switched. 

Lately a new difficulty has emerged. Party names. Just as I had politicians’ names almost under control, they began switching lists, and the parties themselves changing names with alacrity. When parties have buzzwords rather than platforms, MKs can hop between them, seeking the best opportunities in a place they can temporarily call home.

And since many of the party names are generic, one-size-fits-all, it is hard to keep up even for those who don’t suffer from the niche memory lapse.

As Israel gears up for the October 27 general election, I can name another challenge to keeping up: mergers.

This might explain why Israelis often opt to call a party simply after its leader rather than by its official name. Hence, the focus is on “Bibi,” “Eisenkot,” “Ben-Gvir,” “Smotrich,” “Liberman,” and so on.

Take Naftali Bennett as an example. Bennett led a range of parties from Habayit Hayehudi, the New Right, and Yamina. Forgive me if I’ve forgotten any others. Ahead of this election, he registered a party imaginatively called Bennett 2026. It has since formed an alliance with Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid to collectively become known (even more imaginatively) as Beyachad (“Together”).

They make an effort to distinguish their party from Gadi Eisenkot’s “Yashar!” (Straight!), which is currently leading in many polls.

What’s in a name? My free advice to Israeli political strategists: take into account how a name like “Yashar” (Straight!) translates into other languages and cultures, and avoid letters that trip off the Hebrew-speaker’s tongue but trip up foreign newscasters, like the guttural “ch” in Beyachad.

Yoaz Hendel is another serial party hopper. Note, by the way, that it’s Hendel, not Handel. He entered the Knesset on the Telem list – then part of Benny Gantz’s Blue-and-White party that later morphed into the Israel Resilience Party before becoming the National Unity Party but switched back to Blue-and-White after Eisenkot deserted. (No wonder I get confused.)

Hendel then founded Derech Eretz, which was aligned with Gideon Sa’ar’s New Hope (Sa’ar has since realigned with the Likud – for now.) Then Hendel ran with Zionist Spirit (part of Yamina under Ayelet Shaked after Bennett jumped ship). Last year, he formed The Reservists party (Hamiluimnikim), which has since joined with Hilli Tropper in an alliance temporarily known as Yesodot Yisrael (Foundations of Israel). Whether the party and name are solid remains to be seen.

This week, Yair Golan’s Democrats party held primaries with an impressive turnout of more than 85% of the party members. It elected a list that reflects its merger of Labor and Meretz, which didn’t pass the electoral threshold four years ago. To its credit, the party has a relatively clear, left-wing agenda. It’s called “Democrats,” after all.

The death of old party identities

Poignantly, nothing remains of the Labor party of old. Mind you, that party was created from different mergers and was always rife with rivalries, including between Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Ehud Barak renamed a Labor alliance “One Israel,” and current President Isaac Herzog led Labor/One Israel in an alliance with Tzipi Livni (who’s been through too many parties to name here) as the Zionist Union.

Looking at the UK, where Labour is now led by Andy Burnham, and the direction of the US Democratic party, it is clear that many politicians are willing to make a name for themselves by blackening Israel’s name.

Even Golan, at the head of the Democrats list, is not immune. (I might black out on names, but I haven’t forgotten Golan blood-libeling Israeli soldiers at the height of the Gaza War, saying: “A sane country does not kill babies as a hobby.” A sane political leader and former deputy chief of staff should know better than to shoot his mouth off, let alone with poisonous lies.)

Among the Democrats’s top 10 are Omri Ronen and Moshe Radman, who were prominent in the mass protests over the government’s planned judicial reform (including calling for refusal to serve in the army, or to use the laundered name: refusing to volunteer) and later in the mass demonstrations calling for the immediate release of the hostages held by Hamas, which transitioned into anti-government protests.

Radman, by the way, adopted his mother’s maiden name to become Radman Abutbul on social media, apparently in an attempt to show his Moroccan-Sephardi roots and break the Ashkenazi stereotype attached to many of the protest movement leaders.

British and American Jews aren’t the only ones wondering where their longstanding political homes have gone. The uncertainty crosses the political spectrum in Israel, too. Like the demise of Labor, there has been an erosion in the political identity of what was once known as the National Religious sector – the old National Religious Party (Mafdal) was taken over and changed by Bennett; today’s Religious Zionists under Bezalel Smotrich are the same in name only.

The Likud’s name roughly translates as “United,” the result of several mergers. (Its full name is Likud: A National-Liberal Movement.) Led by Benjamin Netanyahu, it is less united than its name implies (and less liberal, for that matter). Netanyahu is trying to change the way the list is drawn up to give him a greater say in who gets the leading spots, and to reduce the presence of rabble rouser MKs like Tali Gotliv, who have a following within parts of the party but who do not go down well with the general public.

It’s not yet clear which (if any) Arab parties will run together on a joint list; their platforms range from Communist to Islamist. The number one issue for the Arab sector is intra-communal violence. The vast majority of homicide victims in Israel are Arab citizens murdered by other Arab citizens, often in self-perpetuating revenge killings.

Then, of course, there are the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties. The last-minute legislation of the outgoing Knesset contains obvious efforts to keep them as partners in a future Likud-led government. This includes the Basic Law anchoring the importance of Torah studies, and a law temporarily banning the arrest and prosecution of ultra-Orthodox men evading military draft.

Shas leader Arye Deri, incidentally, resumed the use of his middle name Makhlouf as a reminder of his Moroccan Jewish heritage. This week, a new party named “Haredi Public,” was announced ahead of the elections.

There are so many small parties that it’s impossible to name them all. Some of them are led by very capable people with a strong record, but if they don’t pass the electoral threshold (3.25% of valid votes), their ballots will be wasted.

It sometimes seems that politics has become more a ratings war than a campaign over real life-and-death issues. Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led invasion and mega-atrocity, and the subsequent war on multiple fronts, security and diplomacy should be high on the list of issues. 

And whichever party leads the government, it will have to address the need for some measure of judicial reform. If the High Court almost routinely overrules appointments and legislation not to its liking, it is not strengthening democracy but weakening it.
 
Above all, the country needs electoral reform – but it’s almost an impossible mission.

Israeli politics is about blocs – loosely named: “Only Bibi” or “Anyone but Bibi.” The prime minister is not automatically the leader of the party that gains the largest number of votes, but rather the person who can present to the president the likelihood of a stable coalition – usually a collection of parties amounting to at least 61 seats out of the 120-member Knesset. 

This leads to political bartering both before and after an election, and places a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of the smaller parties. And it will be extremely difficult – despite various campaign promises and name-calling – to create a majority bloc without either the Arab parties or the haredi parties.

The challenge is not only to create a coalition, but to maintain it. But in Israeli politics, anything goes – you name it.

At the Giving of the Torah, we received the Ten Commandments. In many synagogues, the Tablets of the Ten Commandments are displayed above the Holy Ark, leading many to assume that they constitute the very foundation of Judaism, while the rest of the commandments were added only at a later stage.

Our Sages, however, taught that the entire Torah was given to Moses at Sinai and during the 40 days that followed that momentous revelation.

Accordingly, the Ten Commandments are not an independent list of fundamental principles, but, rather, the nucleus from which the entire Torah unfolds – its genetic code.

This idea was articulated explicitly by Rabbi Saadia Gaon, who devoted an entire work to demonstrating how all 613 commandments are encompassed within the Ten Commandments.

All 613 commandments are included within the Ten Commandments

Likewise, Rashi (on Exodus 24:12), one of the greatest commentators on the Torah, wrote: “All six hundred and thirteen commandments are included within the Ten Commandments.”

This understanding also influenced Jewish law. The Talmud relates that during the Temple period, the kohanim would recite the passage of the Ten Commandments as part of the daily Temple service. When the Sages later considered incorporating this reading into the public prayers, they ultimately abolished the practice, out of concern that heretics would claim that only the Ten Commandments were divinely revealed, while the rest of the Torah consisted merely of later rabbinic enactments.

Rashi (Berachot 12a) explains: “So that the unlearned should not say: ‘The rest of the Torah is not true. You see, they recite only what the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke and they heard directly from Him at Sinai.’”

From this, we can appreciate how important it was to the Sages to emphasize that the Torah is a single, indivisible whole, rather than a collection of commandments of varying significance.

This concept becomes especially clear when we compare the two places in the Torah where the Ten Commandments appear: first in parashat Yitro in the Book of Exodus, and again here in parashat Va’ethanan.

At first glance, the second version appears to be a simple repetition. Yet the Torah commentators point to numerous differences between the two texts. These are not different commandments; rather, Moses reveals additional layers that were already embedded within the revelation at Sinai.

One striking example concerns the commandment of Shabbat.

‘Remember’ positive obligations on shabbat

In parashat Yitro, the Torah commands: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8).

In parashat Va’ethanan, however, it states: “Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Deuteronomy 5:12).

In the language of the Sages, “Remember” refers to the positive obligations of Shabbat – honoring it, delighting in it, and making it a day of joy, rest, and spiritual elevation. “Observe,” by contrast, refers to the prohibitions of Shabbat – refraining from all forms of labor as defined by Jewish law.

The Sages therefore taught: “‘Remember’ and ‘Observe’ were spoken in a single utterance – something that the mouth cannot speak and the ear cannot hear” (Rosh Hashanah 27a).

In other words, at Mount Sinai the two commands were delivered simultaneously – both the obligation to remember Shabbat and the obligation to observe it. The people heard them in a miraculous manner that transcended the limitations of human language.

THIS RAISES an important question: Why was it necessary for these commandments to be delivered in such an extraordinary way? Why were they not stated separately, as so many other commandments were?

This question speaks directly to the modern human experience.

Many people today are naturally drawn to the idea of Shabbat as a day of rest – a pause from life’s relentless pace, a time for family, friends, and emotional renewal. In that sense, they readily embrace the concept of “Remember.”

But when it comes to “Observe” – the system of restrictions that limits what one may do – resistance often arises. Why shouldn’t each person simply decide for themselves what constitutes rest?

The answer lies in the fact that the Jewish people was commanded through a single divine utterance that contained both ideas together. This teaches us that “Remember” and “Observe” are not two alternative approaches, but one inseparable system. Refraining from labor is not an end in itself; it is the condition that enables a person to truly step away from the demands of ordinary life.

According to the Torah’s perspective, the Creator, who knows human nature, understands that genuine inner rest cannot be achieved merely by stopping work. It requires creating a sacred space in which the practical concerns of everyday life no longer demand our attention. Shabbat is not merely a day for physical recovery; it is also intended for spiritual renewal – and that dimension can be attained only when both aspects are observed together.

For this reason, “Remember” and “Observe” were spoken in one utterance. In the Torah’s vision, Shabbat is not a coincidental combination of rest and restrictions. Rather, it is a unified reality in which delight and boundaries, freedom and discipline, come together to create a complete human experience.

The true essence of Shabbat cannot be understood when these two dimensions are separated. 

The writer is rabbi of the Western Wall and holy sites.

In his final address to the Jewish people, Moses repeatedly warns against the lure of the pagan cultures awaiting us in the Land of Israel.

For 40 years we lived in the isolation of the desert, sheltered from the powerful religious influences of the ancient world. Yet even there, we twice fell into the worship of idols. Just weeks after hearing God’s voice at Sinai, we fashioned the Golden Calf. Four decades later, our encounter with the Midianites drew many into the worship of Peor.

Moses could only imagine how much greater the danger would be, once we settled among the local Canaanite nations, surrounded by temples, carved images, and pagan rituals.

For the modern reader, however, Moses’ fear raises an obvious question: what made idolatry so attractive in the first place? We live in a modern world shaped by science, technology, and reason. The lure of idolatry seems almost incomprehensible. Who, in their right mind, would bow before a statue of wood or stone?

This view is deeply anachronistic. The ancient world was far less predictable and secure than our own. People lived at the mercy of drought, famine, disease, war, and natural disasters. Their survival depended on forces they could neither control nor fully understand.

It was only natural to seek the favor of higher powers believed to govern these forces. The sun and stars regulated the seasons, while the sea inspired both awe and terror. Nature appeared to possess mysterious and overwhelming power. The idols were not worshiped as gods in themselves, but as tangible representations of these unseen forces.

Once we step into the world of the ancients, the appeal of idolatry no longer seems so mysterious.

The mystery of Peor

This explains most forms of pagan worship. The worship of Peor, however, stands apart, defying ordinary explanation. Its adherents expressed their devotion by defecating before the idol. How could one of the most private and undignified human acts possibly be transformed into an expression of reverence?

Yet the cult of Peor exerted a powerful attraction. Twenty-four thousand Jews perished after being drawn into its seductive worship. Whatever lay behind this bizarre ritual, it possessed an extraordinary power to captivate thousands of people.

My Rebbe, Harav Yehuda Amital, explained that the underlying ethos of Peor was the belief that everything natural is holy precisely because it is natural.

Defecation was chosen not because the act itself expressed reverence, but because it served as the ultimate expression of this philosophy. By elevating one of the most private and undignified human functions into an act of worship, Peor proclaimed – through deliberate hyperbole – that every aspect of nature is inherently sacred. Every living organism must eliminate waste; it is indispensable to life. By defecating before their idol, the worshippers of Peor were declaring that whatever is natural is, by definition, holy.

Judaism flatly rejects this notion. The fact that we possess a natural impulse or inclination does not mean it should be expressed whenever it arises. God gave us a moral will and a system of mitzvot to guide us in discerning which desires should be cultivated and which should be restrained. Something is not holy merely because it is natural. It becomes holy only when it is elevated through mitzvot and the service of God.

The curtain falls

But Peor’s philosophy carried a second implication as well. If every aspect of nature is equally holy simply because it is natural, then nothing deserves concealment. Privacy itself becomes meaningless. The distinction between the public and the private collapses.

Certain aspects of life – and surely everyone would agree that the elimination of bodily waste is one of them – belong behind the curtain, not on public display. Every healthy society distinguishes between the “front stage” and the “back stage,” between what is shared publicly and what remains personal and private. Once an act is performed before an audience, we inevitably become aware not only of the experience itself but also of how it is being perceived. We begin, even subtly, to perform as well as to live. Experiences that should simply be lived become performances. That is precisely why some parts of life belong behind the curtain.

Parashat Va’ethanan highlights the importance of these boundaries. It recounts the awe-inspiring moment of the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, where the mountain was surrounded by firm boundaries and the people were instructed to remain at a distance. The holiness of the moment demanded separation rather than unrestricted access.

The same pattern appeared in the Sanctuary. The Holy of Holies stood behind a curtain, and entry was permitted only to the high priest, and only once each year. The Torah repeatedly surrounds its holiest moments and holiest places with boundaries.

Publicity for all

Modern culture has gradually eroded many of these boundaries, making far more of life public than previous generations would have imagined. This shift did not occur overnight, nor can it be attributed to any single cause. It emerged through a series of cultural developments that steadily expanded the public sphere.

The rise of modern individualism encouraged people to place greater value on expressing their authentic inner selves. Increasingly, self-expression came to be viewed as a moral virtue, often taking precedence over conformity to inherited social norms.

Modern psychology, particularly the influence of Freud, deepened our understanding of the human psyche and highlighted the value of speaking openly about thoughts and emotions that had previously remained hidden.

This development brought enormous benefits, fostering greater emotional awareness and helping remove the stigma surrounding many forms of personal struggle. At the same time, it also encouraged a culture in which openness itself increasingly became an ideal. The assumption gradually took hold that openness is almost always healthier than concealment.

Mass media introduced another shift. The emergence of celebrity culture blurred the line between achievement and publicity, creating a fascination not only with the accomplishments of public figures.

Reality television pushed that boundary even further, transforming private relationships and family life into entertainment.

Social media completed the process by giving everyone a stage. Increasingly, experiences seem incomplete until they are shared, and publicity has become the natural setting for much of modern life.

Tzniut, recovering forgotten instinct

The curtain has fallen, and with it something precious has quietly slipped away. We have lost the ability to leave parts of life behind the curtain, untouched by the gaze of others. The spirit of Peor is still alive. We have forgotten that not every part of life is meant for public view.

Recovering that forgotten instinct is one of the deepest meanings of tzniut.

This trait of tzniut is often misunderstood. It is not limited to women, nor is it confined to standards of dress.

At its core, tzniut is the ability to distinguish between the public and the private, and to recognize that not every part of life belongs on display. Some of our deepest experiences derive their meaning precisely because they are reserved for a private realm shared only with those to whom they truly belong.

The more we preserve that private space, the richer and more profound those experiences become. When everything is made public, even life’s most meaningful moments can lose their intimacy and depth.

The Torah’s vision of holiness differs fundamentally from that of Peor. Holiness is not created by exposing everything. It is created by knowing what belongs behind the curtain.

At Sinai, the people were instructed to remain outside the boundary. In the Sanctuary, the holiest place stood behind a curtain.

Tzniut is the determination to preserve those boundaries in a world that increasingly erases them.

The writer is a rabbi and educator at Yeshivat Har Etzion (Gush). His latest book, Reclaiming Redemption, Vol. II: Faith, Identity, Peoplehood, and the Storms of War, is available at mtaraginbooks.com.

French authorities ordered on Friday the total evacuation of the Cap Ferret peninsula, a tourism hotspot on the Atlantic Coast, sending boats to remove people from an area threatened by a major wildfire.

The order for a total evacuation of the area, which is home to many valuable properties and is currently full of tourists enjoying their summer vacations in camp sites and rental homes, underlined the severity of the fire.

French President Emmanuel Macron said he had requested help from the European Union as the country’s battle against wildfires intensifies.

“France has requested the activation of the European Union’s civil protection mechanism. We will soon be able to count on reinforcements from two Croatian Canadair aircraft, two Portuguese Air Tractor planes, as well as two heavy Black Hawk helicopters from the Czech Republic and Slovakia,” wrote Macron on X on Friday.

Sophie Brocas, the prefect for the Nouvelle Aquitaine region, said on Friday that evacuees from the Cap Ferret peninsula could leave from piers in four villages in the area between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. local time.

All those still present in those villages must leave either on the boats or by the only road linking the area with the mainland, she added.

The fire has already devastated 8,700 hectares and is still raging.

France hit hard by summer’s heatwaves

Across Europe, three heatwaves in succession this season have intensified drought, strained water supplies and left vegetation tinder-dry, helping wildfires scorch more land already this year than the annual average of the past two decades. The heat has also been blamed for thousands of deaths.

France has been particularly hard hit, with the intense heat pressuring its capacity to handle the situation.

“Our security forces are engaged in a genuine battle against the wildfires,” French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez said on Thursday evening. “The nation stands with you.”

Second wildfire ignites near Biscarosse

The pressure on fire departments in southwestern France has been increased by another wildfire that began on Thursday afternoon near Biscarosse, just 40 kilometers south of Cap Ferret.

That fire, which is still not under control, has devastated 2,500 hectares, the prefect for the Landes area, Gilles Clavreul, said in a statement.

“Winds are blowing, and the situation remains highly dynamic and unfavorable,” he said.

More than 23,000 people were evacuated from the Biscarosse district, mainly in campsites and homes and a children’s summer camp and a residential care home for the elderly were also evacuated.

He asked farmers to contribute with water tanks.

The Spanish government on Thursday night declared a national emergency after a series of wildfires threatened communities near Madrid and in the neighbouring province of Avila, forcing more than 10,000 people to evacuate as firefighters struggled to contain the blazes.

The Spanish Interior Ministry said the decision was taken because of the simultaneous outbreak of several fires, adverse weather conditions and the need to mobilise extensive resources from different public administrations, increasing the complexity of firefighting and civil protection efforts.

Spain and much of southern Europe face increasingly severe wildfire seasons that scientists have linked to climate change. Experts say abundant vegetation growth following unusually heavy spring rainfall has dried out in extreme summer heat, creating fuel for rapidly spreading fires.

The regional government of Madrid requested assistance, describing the situation as one of “extreme gravity”. It said active fires in Villa del Prado, San Martin de Valdeiglesias and Almorox, in neighbouring Castile-La Mancha, had the potential to advance beyond current extinguishing capacity.

It also warned that the wildfire in Burgohondo, Avila, could reach the Madrid region in the coming hours due to weather conditions.

Over 10,000 people evacuated

More than 10,000 people have been evacuated from Villa del Prado, San Martin de Valdeiglesias, Pelayos de la Presa and Aldea del Fresno, according to the regional government.

Under Spain’s National Civil Protection System law, the declaration places the emergency under the direct authority of the interior minister, who is responsible for coordinating the response. Authorities said it was the first such declaration linked to a wildfire.

More than 270 emergency personnel and 40 ground units have been deployed in the affected areas, alongside several Military Emergency Unit (UME) contingents.

More than 100,000 hectares have burned in Spain so far this year, roughly equivalent to the country’s average annual burned area over the past decade. Thirteen people have died, making 2026 one of the deadliest wildfire seasons in decades.

Israeli cybersecurity firm Pentera announced on Wednesday a deal with Recorded Future to integrate their technologies, with a demonstration expected at the Black Hat 2026 conference.

Recorded Future, one of the world’s largest threat intelligence companies, will allow Pantera to use its platform to showcase its artificial intelligence system to validate threats in real time.

Called Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM), it integrates Recorded Future’s capacity to detect threats with Pantera’s system to validate them, offering a “single autonomous operational flow in alignment.”

The new system will be showcased on August 6 in Las Vegas, during Black Hat 2026’s panel on “Threat Intel Just Got Teeth: TLPT Goes Live.”

“This partnership connects threat intelligence and security validation in a way the market has been missing,” said Amitai Ratzon, CEO of Pentera.

“Recorded Future customers already understand which threats are relevant to them. Pentera turns that intelligence into proactive security validation testing, including a fast cycle of surgical remediation steps, leading to measurable risk reduction,” he added.

Integrating into the new cybersecurity era

The integration of both systems aims to align current cybersecurity systems with global regulations, including the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and TIBER-EU.

The company explained that these frameworks emphasize validating defenses against real adversary behavior rather than abstract vulnerability lists.

“This integration with Pentera unlocks the next level. Automated validation helps determine whether those threats are exploitable in a given environment. That’s the future of operationalized intelligence,” said Jamie Zajac, Chief Product Officer at Recorded Future.

“The companies will demonstrate how integrating live threat intelligence with automated validation helps organizations continuously test their defenses against the latest attacker activity,” read a company statement.

A merchant ship hijacked in Yemeni waters in the Gulf of Aden last week is now being held by Somali pirates, two residents of Somalia’s semi-autonomous Puntland region told Reuters on Thursday.

The ship, the MT Asana, is a Tanzanian-flagged fuel and chemical tanker.

One of the residents who spoke to Reuters described himself as a former pirate. He said there were 20 crew members on board the MT Asana, including eight from Germany and 10 from the Philippines.

Germany’s Foreign Ministry said it did not comment on abductions of German nationals overseas as a matter of principle.

The other resident of Caluula in Puntland saw pirates transporting food to the hijacked ship.

UKMTO confirms hijacking account

United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said last week that a vessel boarded by unauthorized personnel in the Gulf of Aden had been maneuvered into Somali waters, classifying it as a hijack.

Somali pirates caused havoc in the waters off the Horn of Africa nation’s long coastline between 2008 and 2018. After a lull, pirate activity started to pick up again in late 2023.

Israeli lawmakers and leaders called for the IDF to respond to the Friday morning terror attack in Gilad Farm, which killed one and seriously wounded two others, “with an iron fist.”

“A tough morning. I send my heartfelt condolences to the family of the murdered, pray for the recovery of the wounded in the attack, and embrace the residents and hikers,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said in a post to X/Twitter on Friday morning.

“We will not normalize the erosion of deterrence and the brazenness of our enemies in recent weeks against the pioneers of settlement and the farms. I demand that the IDF act with an iron fist against the village of the murderers and its surroundings and restore governance and deterrence,” he added.

“The people of the farms and the heroic settlement pioneers are the defensive wall of the State of Israel. We will continue to strengthen and honor them for their steadfast stand for our existence in the Land of Israel against Arab terrorism.”

“Attack after attack. Our hearts are with our brothers at Gilad Farm on this difficult morning,” echoed former prime minister Naftali Bennett in his own statement following the attack.

“Sending heartfelt condolences to the family of the murdered, and praying for the recovery of the wounded. The entire people of Israel stand with the IDF and the security forces in their war against the murderers and their senders. The terror must be eradicated with an iron fist,” Bennett added.

“The cities and villages of the murderers in Judea and Samaria will be judged the same as Beit Hanun in Gaza,” said National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, adding that he is on his way to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and will “demand that the IDF be ordered to erase from the air and through D9 [bulldozers] the homes of terrorists and their supporters, and to collect from the terrorists the price they deserve.”

“For every Jew who is murdered – the enemy must absorb the loss of lands and homes.”

“This is the language spoken in the Middle East, and as we spoke it in Gaza, it is time to speak it in Judea and Samaria as well,” he said.

Terror will not break us, Dagan says

Samaria Regional Council Head Yossi Dagan added that the incident is still ongoing.

“The incident is still ongoing. There are still people in danger. Terror will not break us,” Dagan said. “The response must be offensive: We must relentlessly pursue the terrorists and strike terrorism with full force.”

“At the same time, we must continue to build, develop, and strengthen the communities in Samaria. Anyone who tries to harm us should know that they will be met with a stronger and larger Samaria.”

“I demand that the government launch a large-scale military operation against the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, who are trying to ignite a wave of terrorism here. We’ve seen it over the past week. We expect the government and the military leadership to carry out a major operation, a real military campaign, in Samaria, here near Gilad Farm, to make it clear that Israel has changed the rules of the game and will not tolerate a wave of terrorism,” he added.

Area is ‘burning’

“The shocking attack this morning, which joins yesterday’s attack and the wave of fires and repeated arsons, illustrates that these are not isolated incidents but planned and ongoing terrorism,” Mateh Binyamin Regional Council Head Israel Ganz said.

“The area is literally burning,” he stated. “The wave of arsons, attempted attacks and the ongoing incitement by the Palestinian Authority are part of a single campaign aimed at harming the settlement and the citizens of Israel.”

“Judea and Samaria is not a secondary arena. It is a central front of the State of Israel, and the policy here must change accordingly, by launching a broad operation against the centers of terror, exacting a heavy price from anyone involved in terrorism or incitement, and stopping treating these attacks as routine,” Ganz said.

“We pray for the full recovery of the wounded and wish strength to the security forces, IDF, and pioneering farmers who stand on the front lines and protect Israeli citizens with their bodies every day,” he stated.

The global race for dominance in artificial intelligence is turning into one of the most expensive and turbulent corporate competitions in history.

Tech giants Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta are expected to spend about $600 billion on AI infrastructure during 2026.

This unprecedented spending spree is eroding cash flows and placing heavy pressure on companies to prove that massive investments in chips, servers, and data centers will ultimately yield profits. Yet alongside the grand promises, the operational and human toll is beginning to mount.

One company that took one of the industry’s biggest bets is Oracle.

The software giant became a primary provider of AI computing power after signing a massive $300 billion contract with OpenAI. However, constructing the data centers required to fulfill the agreement caused a severe cash squeeze.

Oracle slashes 13% of workforce

To fund the rapid expansion, Oracle took aggressive efficiency measures and enacted a sweeping wave of layoffs. By the end of fiscal year 2026, the company’s workforce was slashed by about 21,000 employees, a decline of roughly 13%, from 162,000 to 141,000 workers. The deep cuts followed an operational restructuring driven in part by the internal adoption of AI technologies.

Now it appears that the complex financial situation in which Oracle finds itself is endangering one of its flagship projects. The company is involved in planning a massive, nearly one-gigawatt data center in Port Washington, Wisconsin, meant to supply computing power for the OpenAI contract.

However, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin refused to ease financial collateral requirements, which are designed to ensure that private electricity consumers are not forced to absorb costs in the event of the facility’s failure or closure.

Under local regulations for large consumers, a data center operator whose S&P credit rating drops below A- is required to provide collateral covering the electrical infrastructure built for it.

When the requirements were reviewed, Oracle’s rating stood at BBB and was subsequently downgraded to BBB-. The rating agency attributed the downgrade to heavy AI spending and uncertainty regarding the ability to generate profits from it.

As a result, Oracle is now required to provide cash collateral or a letter of credit in the astronomical sum of over $7 billion just to connect the building to the power grid, a setup whose ongoing maintenance will cost the company more than $100 million annually.

Oracle petitioned the court against the requirement, arguing that these financing costs would deter future investment in the state, while emphasizing its commitment to the project, which carries an estimated value of about $15 billion.

Regulators, on the other hand, remained firm in their stance, clarifying that existing customers should not subsidize data centers. This issue is not limited to Wisconsin: At least 24 US states have already approved special rates, minimum conditions, exit penalties, and collateral requirements for heavy electricity consumers.

The Minnesota man who pleaded guilty to assassinating a top Democratic lawmaker and attempting to murder another was sentenced to life in federal prison on Thursday, 13 months after he disguised himself as a police officer and attacked the legislators at their homes.

Vance Boelter, 59, was given consecutive life sentences plus 40 years by US District Court Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis. He pleaded guilty to six counts in June, including murder, part of an agreement with prosecutors that allowed him to avoid a potential death sentence.

“Political violence is an attack not only on its immediate victims, but also on our communities, our democratic institutions, and the rule of law,” Acting US Attorney Todd Blanche said in a statement.

Boelter, wearing a silicone mask, donned a police uniform and drove an SUV with a license plate that read, “Police,” as he carried out the late-night shootings on June 14, 2025.

After ringing the doorbell and gaining entry, Boelter fatally shot Melissa Hortman, the top Democrat in the Minnesota House of Representatives, and her husband Mark in their home. Earlier, he also shot and wounded state Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette at their home a few miles away.

Visited homes of two additional lawmakers

He also visited the homes of two other lawmakers that night, authorities said, but no one answered the door at one house and Boelter left the other home when a police officer, believing him to be a fellow officer, approached his car.

Investigators found a list of more than 45 Minnesota officials in his car. Law enforcement captured Boelter two days later after the largest manhunt in state history.

The shootings highlighted the spike in political violence that has hit the US in recent years.

During Thursday’s sentencing, victims and family members spoke emotionally about the toll Boelter’s crimes had taken, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“I miss my mom, I miss my dad,” the daughter of the Hortmans, Sophie Hortman, said through tears. “I miss believing in the goodness of humanity.”

Boelter pleads guilty

Mark Hortman’s father, J. Carroll Hortman, criticized the government for agreeing to a plea deal, the newspaper reported. Hortman also said he tried to appeal to Blanche but was blown off.

Asked to comment, a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement that the US attorney general always considers the views of victims’ families when determining whether to seek the death penalty in specific cases.

“But even when capital punishment may appear to be the just sentence, significant legal or evidentiary obstacles may leave no legally sustainable basis to seek it,” the statement said, without specifying whether such obstacles existed in the Boelter case.

After Boelter pleaded guilty in June, the US Attorney in Minnesota, Daniel Rosen, told reporters, “This case as charged was certainly death penalty eligible, and we would have prevailed in that ultimately in the courts. But the truth is, when you have a defendant that is prepared to plead guilty … to ensure that he never sees freedom again in his entire life, that was an opportunity that we just could not pass up.”

Boelter briefly apologized in court before he was sentenced.

“To every person I have caused loss, pain, heartache, confusion, sadness, shame, or loneliness, I am truly sorry,” he said, according to the Star Tribune.

United Nations Human Rights chief Volker Turk, an outspoken critic of Russia’s war in Ukraine and Israel’s conduct in Gaza, faces opposition from both countries to a second four-year term ahead of a potentially contentious vote on Friday, diplomats told Reuters.

Turk, a lawyer who has worked for the United Nations for decades in major offices such as Geneva and field locations including Kosovo, ends his first four-year term in October.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who has worked closely with Turk in the past and who steps down in December, has proposed another term for the Austrian until 2030.

However, Russia has submitted a counter-proposal to extend his term by just over two months, until the end of 2026, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Three diplomats said Israel also opposed a four-year extension and that Washington had raised doubts, turning what had been expected to be a consensus-backed reappointment into a contentious vote.

Others have also privately questioned another full term, saying the matter should instead be determined by Guterres‘ successor. “It’s up to the next SG,” one diplomat said.

Asked to comment, Russia’s UN mission in New York agreed.

“Mr. Turk’s reappointment for four years deprives the new Secretary-General of the opportunity to make his/her own choice for such an important post for a long period,” it said. “It is an arbitrary idea given the sensitivity of the human rights architecture and its role in the United Nations in general.”

The mission said the view was shared by “many” UN states and added: “We’ll see tomorrow how many of them will be ready to openly state their position without fear of reprisals.”

Since the vote is in the UN General Assembly, the veto powers held by Russia and the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, China, the United States, Britain and France, do not apply.

Israel’s mission and the US State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

When asked about his reappointment earlier this week, a spokesperson for Turk’s office, Thameen Al-Kheetan, declined comment, adding: “I believe the High Commissioner is ready to serve.”

 Defender of freedoms

The high commissioner, a post created in 1993, plays a critical role in speaking out against the backsliding of freedoms at a time when autocracies are gaining influence at the expense of democracy.

Some early critics of Turk’s appointment had assumed he would adopt a quieter approach. Instead, he has repeatedly criticized governments ranging from Russia and Israel to the United States.

He has accused Russia of severe violations of human rights and international humanitarian law since its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, allegations Moscow denies.

He has called for investigations into deaths in US immigration custody and denounced hostilities between the United States and Iran. Washington has defended its standard of care in custody.

Turk has also condemned Israel’s “mass killing” in Gaza, although some, including his own staff, regret he did not denounce a genocide there, allegations Israel categorically denies.

The Russian mission rejected as “tunnel vision” suggestions that Moscow was opposing a four-year extension because of Turk’s criticism of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. It said its considerations included the wish to preserve the UN’s institutional integrity and respect procedures.

African backing

Diplomats said Guterres has been consulting governments for months about the proposal – a process meant to garner consensus and ward off last-minute surprises, like Russia’s motion.

Turk enjoys strong backing from European states and many Latin American ones, they said. A diplomatic memo from the African Union seen by Reuters showed “no objection” to the proposed four-year reappointment.

There are no other known candidates for the position being considered.

“The Secretary-General is following the resolution and following the rules,” UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said in New York on Thursday.

“I will add, of course, that the Secretary-General has very much appreciated the work that Volker Turk has done in his term as High Commissioner for Human Rights.”

Zehava Shaul, mother of St.-Sgt. Oron Shaul, a fallen soldier whose remains were held by Hamas for a decade, has passed away, the Jordan Valley Regional Council said on Friday morning.

“Zehava was a dear and noble woman, who fought for over 10 years to return her son Oron to a burial in Israel,” the council eulogized her in its statement. “The council embraces the family at this time and bows its head in her memory.”

Zehava will be buried in Poria Illit, located near the Kinneret in northern Israel, beside her husband Herzl and son, Oron.

On July 20, 2014, Oron, 20, entered the Shejaia neighborhood near Gaza City in an armored personnel carrier with six other soldiers. The APC was struck by a Kornet anti-tank missile fired by Hamas, killing all those inside.

Oron’s remains were recovered from the Gaza Strip by the IDF and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) in January 2025.

“Michal and I were privileged to accompany Zahava and the Shaul family over the years, up to the painful and earth-shattering moment when Oron was laid to rest, after more than ten years of waiting, pain, and longing,” President Isaac Herzog shared in a post on X.

“Zahava’s figure will be etched in the heart of the nation as a mother who never for a moment gave up on her son, and as a symbol of perseverance and hope even in the most difficult moments. May her memory be a blessing.”

קיבלנו בצער עמוק את הידיעה על פטירתה של זהבה שאול ז״ל – אם אמיצה, נחושה ומעוררת השראה, שהקדישה יותר מעשור למאבק בלתי מתפשר להשבת בנה, סמל ראשון אורון שאול ז״ל, לקבר ישראל.

מיכל ואני זכינו ללוות את זהבה ומשפחת שאול לאורך השנים, עד הרגע הכואב והמטלטל שבו הובא אורון למנוחת עולמים,… pic.twitter.com/nVUOpHnaji

— יצחק הרצוג Isaac Herzog (@Isaac_Herzog) July 24, 2026

Oron’s remains returned in secret operation

The secret operation, which involved Shayetet 13 and other special forces, was carried out overnight, somewhere in northern Gaza, and announced just before the Israel-Hamas ceasefire had taken effect.

Oron was laid to rest on January 20, 2025.

“I am in shock,” Zehava had said during a press conference following the return of Oron’s remains. “I’ve been waiting for Oron for 10 and a half years. And believe me, I didn’t believe I would see this moment.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the operation after it was cleared for publication, saying, “In a special operation conducted by the Shin Bet and the IDF just before the ceasefire took effect, we successfully brought back to Israel the body of Golani Brigade soldier Oron Shaul, of blessed memory.

“I extend my heartfelt embrace to the Shaul family and express my deepest gratitude to the Shin Bet and IDF forces for their unwavering courage and determination.

Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.

On Tuesday night, the mayor of New York posted a two-minute video to explain that he cannot arrest Benjamin Netanyahu.

He had been promising to arrest him since December 2024. At some point, the city’s lawyers told him what any first-year law student could have told him, and so he made a video. That was the news in it. The other hundred seconds were the reason he bothered.

Israel was targeting neonatal care centers. It was starving countless people. It was gunning down hundreds of aid workers and journalists. Americans were paying for the bombs that do the killing. Netanyahu was the architect of a horrific genocide, a war criminal, not welcome in New York City. Washington should arrest him instead.

October 7 did not come up. There is only one “bad” country outside the United States, and it’s Israel. Not China. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not North Korea. Only Israel.

By Wednesday morning, Zohran Mamdani was at City Hall suggesting New Yorkers go protest Netanyahu at the United Nations in September. Protest, he said, is one of the bedrocks of this city. He also said he is committed to representing all New Yorkers, whether they agree with him or not.

The UJA-Federation, which does not usually talk this way, opened its statement with “Shame on you.” The Orthodox Union said the video “endangers Jewish New Yorkers” and that the mayor peddles “lies and misinformation that risk inciting further violence against Jews.” Gadi Eisenkot, who has spent his political career trying to get Netanyahu out of office, called it “pure antisemitism, with no basis in fact.”

Eight months ago, 33% of Jewish voters in the city put him there.

That number is what sent me into the German archives. Jews backing a movement that hates them is not a new story. I wanted to know how close the match was.

More of it matched than I wanted. Some of it does not match at all.

Max Naumann

Max Naumann was not a crank. Berlin attorney. Captain in the Bavarian Army. Iron Cross First and Second Class, 15 months at the front. When he founded the Association of German National Jews in 1921, respectable people signed up, including the chief editor of one of Germany’s biggest daily papers. The Encyclopaedia Judaica notes he had money behind him, from established quarters of German Jewry.

His theory was that antisemitism is a reaction. Germans were not born hating Jews. They were reacting to things Jews did. To the Eastern European Jews showing up with foreign manners. To Zionists saying out loud that their loyalty was somewhere else. To Jewish writers who made fun of German patriotism. Take away the provocation and the hatred goes with it.

Everything else follows from that. If Jews cause it, Jews can stop it. Naumann wrote it out in his first bulletin in September 1921: Every decent antisemite admits decent Jews exist but calls them exceptions, and he will stop being an antisemite once we prove “we are not a handful of deserters but an army.”

What matches

Start with the theory, which is still in business. Plenty of Jews say the same thing today, only about Zionism. Deal with Israel and the hatred goes away. That is Naumann’s argument, with the nouns swapped. Part of why it survives is that it is comforting. It leaves the Jew something to do.

Then there is where the danger lives, which is always in other Jews. His enemies were the Ostjuden and the Zionists. He accused Eastern Jews of profiteering from the war and wanted their assets confiscated. Different names now. Same trick. And the person making the accusation is never in the group he is pointing at.

He went after his own community’s defense organizations. His whole career was built on attacking the Centralverein, the body that existed to fight antisemitism, and predicting it would collapse. You can hear that argument today from the Left and the Right, sometimes in the same week.

He built a rival. The Verband tried to set up a counter-organization to the Reichsvertretung, German Jewry’s representative body, on the grounds that the Reichsvertretung had Zionists in it. We have a whole field of those now.

He fought Jewish solidarity across borders. His association campaigned against the international boycott of German goods and attacked a world Jewish conference for having no standing to speak on behalf of nationally reliable German Jews. “Jews elsewhere do not speak for us” is not a new sentence.

He said the reports were exaggerated. The Verband published a manifesto claiming Jews in Germany were being fairly treated, and Naumann told foreign reporters the violence was temporary excess, rather than policy. That position was tested in 1935, and the results were published.

He recruited students. The youth wing, the Schwarzes Fähnlein, had about 400 members by 1932 and made approaches to the Hitler Youth. Hans-Joachim Schoeps was 24 when he started his own group of nationalist Jewish students in 1933 and wrote that “National Socialism saves Germany from destruction.” He also demanded the “absolutely necessary separation of Germans and un-German Jews.”

I keep returning to this: As the evidence deteriorated, the theory gained traction. Naumann’s monthly reported a circulation of 5,000 in 1926. By 1935, it was 15,000. In between, Germany passed the Nuremberg Laws.

Then there is how it ended. On November 18, 1935, Reinhard Heydrich, one of the main architects of the Final Solution, signed the order dissolving Naumann’s association for attitudes hostile to the state. The Gestapo picked him up the same day and took him to Columbia-Haus, the concentration camp in Berlin-Tempelhof. The historian Niels Tim Dickhaut writes that in that cell Naumann broke the lenses of his glasses and tried to cut himself with the pieces. They let him out five weeks later, disbarred, 60 years old, unemployable. He was looking into escaping to Britain, a country he had spent his whole career attacking for sponsoring Zionism, when cancer got to him first. Plenty of his followers ended up in the camps.

Fourteen years of proving he was the right kind of Jew. The order that shut him down did not have a paragraph for him.

What does not match?

Three things.

The destruction of the Jews was the Nazi platform. Printed, distributed, available to anyone who wanted to read it. Neither American party has anything like that. What we have is tolerated fringes, imported conspiracy language, and taboos that used to hold and no longer do. Bad enough. Not the same category.

There was no Jewish state in 1933, so there was no such thing as legitimate criticism of one. An enormous amount of argument about Israeli policy – including discussions this paper runs every week – has no Weimar equivalent and does not accommodate anyone.

And the third one gives no comfort at all. Naumann’s association topped at around 7,000 people out of half a million German Jews. That is 1.4%, and every serious Jewish body in Germany treated them as an embarrassment. The Jews who thought accommodation would work in Weimar were a fringe that the community rejected. So no, we are not where they were. In Germany, this was a fringe. Here, it is a third of the community.

The part still open

Naumann’s one defense, if he has one, is that nothing and no one ever told him. There was no notification. There was no single morning when the evidence appeared in a form he could not talk his way around. He had to work it out himself. He got it wrong, and by the time he knew, the Gestapo was at the door.

The 33% do not get that defense.

Nothing was hidden before the vote. The record was the campaign, which appeared on every front page in the city for six months. They voted 33 days after two Jews were murdered at a synagogue in Manchester on Yom Kippur, and six weeks before 15 were shot dead at a Hanukkah party on Bondi Beach in Australia. Since then, notification has arrived monthly, in Mamdani’s own voice. An executive order on day one, revoking the city’s adoption of the international definition of antisemitism. Describing AIPAC as “monsters” moving dark money. And this week, using the office of the mayor to call the elected leader of the Jewish state a war criminal – with October 7 left out of the story.

Nobody has to work anything out anymore. The question is whether a single one of them will say they were wrong.

Most will not, and Naumann is the reason to expect that. His real lesson has nothing to do with Nazis. When you have an explanation for why you are safe, you do not give it up. Usually someone takes it from you.

Two things are worth building while we wait. Community security of the kind the British have in the Community Security Trust (CST) and nobody had on a beach in Sydney in December. And an exit that exists as infrastructure and not as a slogan.

It does not matter because the bill does not go to the Upper West Side. It goes to the man donning a kippah on the subway and to the kids outside the school in Crown Heights who were not asked and who will not be asked next time either.

The US Coast Guard said on Thursday that a Kenmore Air seaplane in Washington state with 11 people on board made an emergency landing near Sucia Island before catching fire, but everyone on the plane was accounted for after a rescue operation.

Kenmore Air, the largest US seaplane airline, said a de Havilland DHC-3 Otter plane that departed from Lake Union, Seattle, was involved in an accident in Shallow Bay near Sucia Island at about 5:15 p.m.

An image released by the Coast Guard showed the seaplane on fire in the water at the crash site.

Sucia Island is in Washington state’s San Juan Islands located north of Seattle near the Canadian border.

The Coast Guard and Canadian and local responders launched multiple assets to assist with the rescue, the Coast Guard said.

Four injured individuals transported to hospital

“Several patients are being transported to local hospitals for medical evaluation and treatment,” it added.

Kenmore Air said there were 10 passengers and one pilot on board. Two injured passengers were transported to medical facilities in Bellingham and another two injured passengers were transported to Orcas Island for evaluation and treatment, the airline said.

“Kenmore Air is fully cooperating with the investigating authorities, and we will continue providing verified information as it becomes available,” CEO David Gudgel said in a statement.

Founded in 1946, Kenmore Air flies more than 90,000 passengers annually on scheduled, scenic and charter flights, according to its website.

A US appeals court on Thursday rejected an effort by US President Donald Trump‘s administration to allow immigration authorities to re-detain a Georgetown University scholar who had advocated for Palestinian rights and opposed the Israel-Hamas War.

A 2-1 panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal immigration law did not bar a lower-court judge from ordering Badar Khan Suri released after hearing his claims that his detention violated his due process and free speech rights under the US Constitution.

The Indian citizen had been arrested by immigration authorities in March 2025 as the Trump administration pursued a campaign to detain and deport foreign nationals who had engaged in pro-Palestinian activism on ​their college campuses.

Two other federal appeals courts have recently overturned decisions by lower-court judges that had led to the release of pro-Palestinian campus activists who had attended Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi.

But the 4th Circuit panel disagreed with those courts’ conclusions that immigration law stripped lower-court judges of jurisdiction to hear a case like Suri’s, saying nothing prevented a judge from hearing a challenge to someone’s allegedly unconstitutional detention even if it related to deportation proceedings pending before the immigration courts.

“Whether the Government has chosen to detain Suri to punish his speech and associations and to chill and deter future speech, and whether it constitutionally may do so, are different questions from whether the Government has and may seek to remove Suri because of his speech and associations,” US Circuit Judge DeAndrea Benjamin wrote for the court.

Both judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. US Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an appointee of Republican US president Ronald Reagan, dissented, calling the ruling “a loss for the immigration system Congress carefully designed.”

The US Department of Homeland Security, which oversees US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, did not respond to a request for comment.

Suri resided in Virginia at time of arrest

“Today reaffirms my faith that an independent judiciary remains the truest guardian of liberty, due process, and the rule of law,” Suri said in a statement.

Suri at the time of his arrest had resided in Virginia with his wife, a Palestinian US citizen. He is a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown’s Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, part of the Jesuit university’s School of Foreign Service.

After ICE took him into custody, he was moved to Texas, where he was freed in May 2025 after US District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles ordered him released on the grounds that he was likely to succeed in proving his arrest was in retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud has polled at its lowest since June 2025, reaching just 20 seats, according to a Maariv poll published Friday.

By contrast, Yashar, led by former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, gained one seat, reaching a record high of 23, opening a three-seat lead over Likud.

The poll also found that former prime minister Naftali Bennett’s Together gained one seat to reach 17, while Yisrael Beytenu also rose by one seat to 10.

Yair Golan’s Democrats remained unchanged at 11 seats following the party’s primaries.

Within the coalition, Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit gained one seat, reaching eight, matching haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, both of which remained unchanged. Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party also gained one seat, rising to five.

As a result of the shifts, the opposition bloc lost one seat but retained a majority of 61 seats. Overall, Netanyahu’s coalition strengthened to 49 seats, while the Arab parties remained stable with 10 seats.

Yesodot Israel, the party led by Chili Tropper and Yoaz Hendel, failed to cross the electoral threshold this week, receiving only 2.9% of the vote. Balad also remained below the threshold with 1.7%, as did Benny Gantz’s Blue and White with 1.6%.

Did Bennett, Lapid’s decision to merge alter voting intentions?

The poll also examined how current Together voters intended to vote before the Bennett-Yair Lapid alliance was formed. Of the party’s projected 17 seats, 10 come from people who already intended to vote for Naftali Bennett in the 2026 election, five from Yesh Atid voters, and two from voters who had planned to support other parties before the alliance was established.

The survey further found that nearly half of voters from the Zionist opposition parties, 46%, believe Bennett and Lapid should continue running together despite the alliance’s standing in the polls. Thirty-one percent said they should part ways, while 23% said they did not know.

A majority of Zionist opposition voters, 57%, also believe Tropper and Hendel should join one of the existing parties. Nineteen percent said they should continue running independently, while 24% were undecided.

According to the poll, if Tropper and Hendel were to join Yashar, the party would rise to 27 seats, equivalent to the combined strength of the parties running separately, further widening its lead over Likud.

Such a move would come at the expense of Together, which would fall to 14 seats, but it would not alter the balance between the blocs: the Zionist opposition would retain 61 seats, Netanyahu’s coalition would hold 49, and the Arab parties would remain at 10.

Bennett leads Netanyahu as most suitable prime minister candidate, poll finds

The Maariv poll also found that Bennett leads Netanyahu in suitability for prime minister, with 45% support compared with Netanyahu’s 42%.

The gap is virtually unchanged from the previous poll conducted at the beginning of July. Eisenkot leads Netanyahu by six percentage points, 46% to 40%, a two-point narrowing from the previous survey. In a head-to-head comparison between Eisenkot and Bennett, the gap also remained largely unchanged, with Eisenkot receiving 38% support and Bennett 23%.

The poll by Lazar Research, headed by Dr. Menachem Lazar, in cooperation with the Panele4ALL online panel. The poll was conducted on July 22-23 among 500 respondents representing a representative sample of Israel’s adult population aged 18 and over, including both Jewish and Arab respondents. The maximum margin of sampling error was 4.4%.

Malaysia’s ambassador to the United States was summoned by the US State Department to explain Kuala Lumpur’s position on Israel, state media reported, citing the country’s foreign minister.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan said that Malaysian Ambassador Muhammad Shahrul Ikram Yaakob told the US State Department that Malaysia’s longstanding policy of not recognising Israel was not new.

“It has always been Malaysia’s policy. Our immigration policy does not recognise the State of Israel or the Zionist regime. This has long been our position.”

“There was an individual with dual citizenship, the US and Israel, who entered Malaysia using his US passport. However, subsequent checks revealed that he also held Israeli citizenship, and we asked him to leave,” Bernama cited Mohamad as saying late on Thursday.

Reuters has sought comment from the US embassy in Malaysia.

Dispute triggered by alleged inclusion of Israelis in ‘digital nomad’ community

The row was triggered after Network School, the “digital nomad” community founded in Malaysia by US investor Balaji Srinivasan, came under scrutiny after social media users alleged that it included participants from Israel.

Malaysia does not have diplomatic ties with Israel and is known to be a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause.

An immigration probe into the Network School followed, and authorities found that all its participants had valid travel documents. However, it was eventually shut down by authorities on Tuesday.

Eight US congressmen later sent a letter to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing outrage over Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s plan to track down and immediately deport any Israeli citizens found in Malaysia.

They urged the US State Department to review US security and economic ties with Malaysia.

They also called on the US State Department to cut off funding for the International Military Education and Training programme, which provides professional US training for Malaysian military personnel, unless the decision is reversed within 15 days.

Sirens sounded in Jordan’s capital city of Amman on Friday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported.

Tasnim said that the sirens were triggered by an Iranian missile attack on a US military base in Jordan, claiming that the attack targeted the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, a key hub for US military activities.

On Thursday evening, sirens sounded in Kuwait, according to reports from state news agency KUNA.

The Kuwaiti army reported that the country’s air defense systems were intercepting “hostile Iranian drone threats.”

Local sources said that Iran had launched drone and missile attacks at the Al-Salem airbase in Kuwait, Tasnim reported.

The Al-Salem base is primarily used by the Kuwait and US Air Forces, and is a major operational and logistical hub for US forces in the region.

IRGC- affiliated Tasnim News Agency reported that the base’s Patriot air defense systems had been activated.

Iraq, Kuwait border crossing targeted

Earlier on Thursday, the Kuwaiti Army announced it was intercepting Iranian hostile drone and missile threats in its airspace on Thursday.

“The General Staff of the Army notes that if explosion sounds are heard, they are the result of air defense systems intercepting the hostile attacks,” said the Kuwaiti military in a statement.

Additionally, a border crossing between Kuwait and Iraq was targeted by drones, said Kuwait’s military in a post on X/Twitter, citing Defense Ministry Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Saud Abdulaziz Al-Otaibi. 

“The Abdali border crossing was subjected, this evening, to repeated targeting by hostile drones, which resulted in material damage, with no human injuries recorded,” said the post. 

Nearly three years after the October 7 massacre, Israelis are still waiting for one of the most basic obligations the outgoing government owes its citizens: A full, independent investigation into the worst security failure in the country’s history.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government informed the High Court of Justice that it will not be able to complete legislation establishing its proposed political commission to investigate the failures surrounding Hamas’s October 7 massacre.

In response to petitions challenging its failure to establish the probe, the government said the legislation would instead be completed after the October 27 elections. Further attacking the judiciary, it also argued that “it is not appropriate for the court to rule on the matter or intervene in it.”

The government’s explanation for the delay should be unacceptable to every Israeli.

Much has been argued – both in the Knesset and on Israel’s streets – over whether a political commission or a state commission of inquiry is the appropriate mechanism. The coalition has repeatedly opposed a state commission, standing firmly behind its objections to an independent inquiry.

Its first argument has been that it is impractical and inappropriate to investigate the events surrounding October 7 while Israel remains at war. The second is that Chief Justice Isaac Amit is not viewed as legitimate by many members of the coalition, raising concerns that any commission he appoints would lack public confidence among a significant segment of the public.

‘Scheduling constraints’ prevented Oct. 7 probe legislation finalization

Even if the government’s objections to a state commission are genuine, they still do not explain why it failed to follow through on its own proposal for a political probe – one specifically designed to address those concerns by replacing Supreme Court appointments to the committee with members selected through a Knesset-led process.

According to the government’s response to the High Court, the legislation could not be finalized because of “scheduling constraints.”

That justification is nothing short of insulting.

Members of this government have spent nearly three years hearing the pleas of bereaved families demanding a commission of inquiry. They have heard them inside the Knesset. They have heard them outside their homes and offices, where grieving relatives have stood for months demanding answers, accountability, and transparency.

Some of those Israelis lost sons, daughters, spouses, parents, and friends on October 7. Others fought for up to 505 days until their loved ones returned from Hamas captivity. All have carried an unimaginable burden while waiting for the state to confront its own failures.

Responding to those families by citing legislative scheduling conflicts is a slap in the face.

The explanation becomes even harder to accept when viewed alongside the coalition’s legislative blitz carried out during the Knesset’s final weeks before its dissolution.

In those weeks, the coalition found time to pass legislation it considered politically essential: A bill preventing the enforcement of draft orders against ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students, legislation enshrining Torah study as a fundamental value in Israel’s Basic Law, a bill restructuring the powers of the attorney-general, and sweeping reforms to Israel’s broadcasting sector.

In passing said bills, the government demonstrated that when legislation is considered urgent by the prime minister, it can move with remarkable speed.

Israel’s top officials replaced since October 7 – except for political echelon

All of Israel’s top security officials in charge on October 7 have since been replaced, some by figures considered close to the prime minister. Eyal Zamir succeeded Herzi Halevi as IDF chief in March 2025, Ronen Bar was replaced by Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) director David Zini three months later, and Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Roman Gofman, succeeded David Barnea as Mossad chief last month.

Yet, the one level of leadership that has not been subjected to meaningful scrutiny is the political echelon itself.

The victims of October 7 deserve better. The bereaved families deserve better. And every Israeli deserves a government that views the need to uncover the truth behind the country’s darkest day as a national obligation rather than a political inconvenience.

Israelis have waited long enough for answers. In this upcoming election campaign, every candidate hoping to form the next government must make clear that establishing a probe into October 7 is their highest priority.

Jerusalem’s premier soccer team made an unusual announcement last week: It would give a new cafe free advertising on players’ uniforms for the coming season.

Cafe Basimta was facing harassment from haredi Orthodox protesters who wanted it to close on Shabbat, and Hapoel Jerusalem said it wanted to send the message that Jerusalem is “an open and diverse city, where there is room for everyone.”

But on Tuesday, Hapoel Jerusalem reversed course and retracted the offer, after learning via an inquiry from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that Cafe Basimta is an official project of Jews for Jesus.

“Our original intention was simply to support a small business that was being denied its freedom of operation, and we still believe in that principle,” club spokesperson Matan Avrina told JTA. “However, we also realized that this specific story is more complex than we initially knew.”

For the secular Israelis who have flocked to Cafe Basimta in response to the protests, too, the revelation of the cafe’s ties to a Christian missionary organization is complicating what had seemed like a simple skirmish in the city’s culture war over businesses open on the Jewish day of rest.

Jerusalem deputy mayor’s response

“I don’t know if it changes my desire to drink their coffee, but it definitely complicates things,” Gabriel, an American studying in Jerusalem for the year, told JTA on Saturday from the cafe’s long line after learning about the Jews for Jesus connection, as protesters yelled. “It’s one layer deeper than I thought.”

Others say the cafe’s Christian character is irrelevant to their defense of Cafe Basimta.

“I understand they hate Jews for Jesus, and I understand what they hate them for,” said Jerusalem’s deputy mayor Adir Schwartz, who is a prominent defender of the city’s secular sector, in an interview. “My father was a rabbi abroad, and I get that they feel they are protecting Jewish continuity.But this is about belonging in our shared city.”

Yoel Ben David, the cafe’s operator as well as Jews for Jesus’ top official in Jerusalem, says the twin culture wars have been good for business.

“Even though financially, it’s great, me and the staff, we don’t love it,” he told JTA from his cafe on Saturday. “We’d all love it to just chill out.”

The secular vs haredi culture war is complicated by new revelations

At first, the tensions over Cafe Basimta seemed straightforward: In a city where 46% of Jews are haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, and only 13% identify as secular, the inverse of Israel as a whole, here was a rare cafe willing to flout religious authorities and open on Shabbat. A handful of such cafes dot the city, but others have given up on Shabbat hours in the past over pressure from religious authorities.

Cafe Basimta, which means “cafe in the alley,” opened at the end of May in the Nahlaot neighborhood of central Jerusalem. The name refers to the neighborhood’s 19th century stone dwellings toppling into one another along tiny streets. Decades ago a center of the city’s bohemian culture, Nahlaot is now increasingly haredi and there are few if any establishments open on Shabbat.

On July 4, the first Saturday it drew protesters, dozens of haredi demonstrators, many of them reportedly minors, descended on the cafe in four separate waves, surrounding it, banging on its windows and overturning tables, according to cafe staff and footage circulated online.

At the time, the cafe’s ties to Jews for Jesus were not public. That changed in early July, when Or LeAchim, a haredi anti-missionary organization that helps Jews leave missionary groups and cults, exposed the connections and began organizing protests against Cafe Basimta.

Haredi anti-missionary organization has launched acampaign against the cafe

The group has placed pashkevils, or public billboards, denouncing the cafe in the neighborhood. “The missionary-messianic influence operates all the more forcefully by winning over hearts through food and drink,” the placards say in Hebrew. “And as if that were not enough, they added sin upon crime and began operating the place on the holy Sabbath, with disgraceful Sabbath desecration in the heart of the holy city.”

The revelations surprised and deterred some who had been inclined to support the cafe. But they did not change the tenor of the demonstrations, which remain focused on Basimta’s Shabbat operations.

“People went to demonstrate because it was open on Shabbos. They did not know that it was a missionary place. The demonstration was not useful for us,” said Binyamin Klugger, who works with Or LeAchim as well as other anti-missionary groups, and who was concerned the aggression of the Haredi protesters would undercut his message about the cafe’s evangelizing mission. He added, “People that continue to demonstrate are really not knowing that it is a missionary place.”

During Saturday’s demonstration, cries of “Shabbos!” echoed off the stone alleyways as the line of Israelis waiting for cold coffees stretched into the courtyard.

Israeli police stepped in to cordon off the protesters, preventing them from approaching the cafe. Some secular Israelis yelled back, with a handful at one point breaking into “Shalom Aleichem,” the hymn traditionally sung at the Shabbat table.

Residents stared down at the altercations from their balconies, the screams shattering an otherwise quiet Shabbat morning. Yael Levy, who moved to Israel from California and lives in the building directly beside Cafe Basimta, was handing out cookies to build goodwill.

“It’s very sad, especially during the Three Weeks,” she said, referring to the mourning period between the 17th of Tammuz and Tisha B’Av, when Jews commemorate the destruction of both Temples, a destruction rabbinic tradition attributes to baseless hatred among Jews. “This is just bad energy during a time that calls for positive energy.”

Cafe owner says proselytizing is not their main goal

Outside, a long line of coffee fiends waited their turn to choose from an extensive drinks menu, as Ben David greeted customers and monitored the demonstration.

There were no visible signs of the cafe’s affiliation with Jews for Jesus. But Ben David confirmed that the organization owns the building and the cafe, which joins a growing network of similar outposts across the country. He said he is aiming to strike a balance between missionary work and just offering a pleasant place to work or meet.

“Everyone accuses us of that,” Ben David said about proselytizing. “The Jesus goal is not completely out, but it’s not front and center.”

Jews for Jesus is a flagship organization of the diffuse movement of Messianic Judaism, which believes in the divinity of Jesus while claiming to practice Judaism, an overlap that no denomination across the Jewish world accepts as compatible. While hard numbers about how many Israelis hold Messianic beliefs are scarce, both Messianic leaders and their critics believe the number is growing. Last year, one of the two Israeli embassy workers killed in an attack outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, came from an Israeli Messianic family.

In 2024, Jews for Jesus appointed a member with an Israeli background as its CEO for the first time, and the Israeli branch of the global organization took in roughly $6 million in revenue that year, supporting a local staff of 60. On its website, it solicits donations for its Israel work, including, in one December 2025 appeal, $225,000 to launch a coffee shop and ministry center in Haifa, which it called a “welcoming space where Israelis can encounter the hope of Yeshua,” the Hebrew name for Jesus.

Ben David has worked with Jews for Jesus for more than two decades. He was born in Israel and came to believe in the divinity of Jesus as a young adult, together with his wife, around the time of his stint in the army, where he served as an Orthodox rabbi. He has a master’s degree from a Messianic seminary and once helmed training for missionary staff in Israel, according to Jews for Jesus’ website, which says he “now leads our work in Jerusalem, bringing the gospel back to the city where he first believed.”

Missionary activity: legal, but widely unpopular

Missionary activity is not illegal in Israel, with the exception of proselytizing to minors without their parents’ consent and offering religious conversions in exchange for a material gift. But many Israelis believe that it is, in a reflection of the deep cultural norms in Jewish communities.

Or LeAchim says it is planning a future protest that will focus more squarely on Cafe Basimta’s missionary ambitions.

“We are planning to hold a massive protest there soon — involving thousands of people — on a weekday,” said Rabbi Binyamin Vulcan, the group’s head of counter-missionary activities. “In the meantime, we are trying to get the place shut down through the municipality.”

Ben David said Jews for Jesus, anticipating such a response, bought Basimta’s building instead of renting it from a landlord who could be susceptible to a pressure campaign. At the same time, he insisted he didn’t understand the uproar.

“If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah,” Ben David said, “what could be more Jewish than believing in Jesus?” As for the missionary label, he insists the cafe is about more than just theology: “We don’t put crosses in our espresso,” he said.

Klugger said he is mystified about why the same secular Jerusalemites who are uncomfortable with the growing haredi character of the city are willing to buy coffee from someone who wants them to stop being Jewish altogether.

“If you don’t want haredim influencing your children,” he said, “you also can’t want missionaries influencing your children.”

Some Shabbat customers, meanwhile, say they have heard the warnings and aren’t swayed — for them, who owns the cafe is beside the point.

“I’m not going to convert because of the coffee, unless it’s really good coffee, then maybe,” said Lior Stern, who drove from the Tel Aviv area to support the cafe after hearing about the protests. “It could be Buddhist, it could be Muslim, it could be Jewish, it could be Christian. That’s not the point. The point is freedom.”

Two men, one of whom was visibly Jewish, were stabbed outside an Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Manhattan on Thursday.

Eyewitnesses allege that the suspect shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the incident, the Anti-Defamation League said in a post on X/Twitter.

Our security partners on the ground have told us that two men, at least one visibly Jewish, were attacked on the Upper West Side of NYC by a man who witnesses allege yelled “Allahu Akbar.” This horrific incident took place just after a prayer service on the somber Jewish holiday…

— ADL New York / New Jersey (@ADL_NYNJ) July 23, 2026

The police reported that a man, 57, was stabbed in the back by the suspect, and that a second man, 50, was stabbed in the chest.

Local police said that one of the victims is Asian, and the other is Jewish, CBS reported.

Investigators are reviewing whether the incident was a hate crime.

American politicians responded to Manhattan attack

“I have been briefed on today’s horrifying stabbings on the Upper West Side, where an Asian man and a Jewish man were attacked,” New York Mayor, Zohran Mamdani said in a post on X.

“According to witness and victim statements, the perpetrator yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ during both attacks. I am relieved that both victims are in stable condition.”

I have been briefed on today’s horrifying stabbings on the Upper West Side, where an Asian man and a Jewish man were attacked. According to witness and victim statements, the perpetrator yelled “Allahu Akbar” during both attacks. I am relieved that both victims are in stable… https://t.co/0LSGtvPojx

— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) July 23, 2026

“The NYPD’s initial investigation suggests that mental health may have been a factor. They are also evaluating these stabbings as potential hate crimes,” he added.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul also responded to the attack in a post on X, saying she was “Disgusted by what appears to be another senseless attack on New Yorkers simply because they’re Jewish.”

Disgusted by what appears to be another senseless attack on New Yorkers simply because they’re Jewish.

The strength of New York has always been our ability to live together across every faith and background.

Anyone who tries to tear that apart will be met with the full force… https://t.co/jGw3VqCxCI

— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) July 23, 2026

“The strength of New York has always been our ability to live together across every faith and background,” she said.

Hochul added that “Our hearts are also with the second victim. Asian New Yorkers, like Jewish New Yorkers, have endured waves of hate-fueled violence in recent years. Hate rarely stops with one group.”

Israeli officials reacted to stabbings

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, held New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani responsible for the attack in Manhattan.

In a post on X, Danon said “Zohran Mamdani, your incitement is putting Jewish lives in danger in New York, home to the largest Jewish community outside Israel.”

Zohran Mamdani, your incitement is putting Jewish lives in danger in New York, home to the largest Jewish community outside Israel.

You have spent months fueling hatred, demonizing Israel and legitimizing hostility toward Jews. Now take responsibility for the consequences.… pic.twitter.com/WrgfQdMD4C

— Danny Danon 🇮🇱 דני דנון (@dannydanon) July 23, 2026

“You have spent months fueling hatred, demonizing Israel and legitimizing hostility toward Jews. Now take responsibility for the consequences,” he added.

“Stop the incitement. Before more people get hurt.”

The IDF is fully prepared for a return to combat with Iran, IDF Arabic language spokesperson Lt. Col. Ella Waweya said in an interview on Thursday night, N12 reported.

During an interview with Al-Arabiya, Waweya was asked about preparations for potential combat with Iran.

She explained that “The IDF is in a state of full readiness and preparedness; both offensive and defensive,” N12 reported.

“We do not wait for missiles to fall or for the enemy to knock on our door before getting ready,” she added.

“October 7th taught the most important lesson: policies of containment, waiting for the first strike, or relying on passive deterrence are no longer acceptable.”

Defense officials met Thursday

This comes shortly after Defense Minister Israel Katz warned Iran that any attack on Israel would draw a devastating response, following a high-level security consultation attended by Israel’s senior military and defense leadership.

“We are preparing for every possibility. If Iran attacks Israel, it will suffer a crushing blow,” Katz said.

The meeting brought together the officials responsible for Israel’s offensive capabilities, air defenses, military intelligence, and civilian preparedness. Katz did not disclose whether the consultation followed a specific warning or intelligence alert.

Ynet reported that assessments among Western intelligence agencies suggest Iran may seek to draw Israel into a confrontation and could even choose to act first.

Oil prices settled above $100 on Thursday for the first time since May after Yemen’s Houthis said they attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing further global supply disruptions following a near-halt in trade through the Strait of Hormuz.

Brent futures finished up $6.62, or 7%, at $100.69 a barrel, marking their highest close since May 22. The global crude oil benchmark’s price is now nearly 40% higher than when the war in Iran began in February, with almost all of the gains coming this month.

US West Texas Intermediate crude CLc1 closed up $5.36, or 6.2%, to settle at $92.19 a barrel, the highest close since June 4.

“With the possibility of a ground war seemingly increasing by the day, and tanker traffic restricted through two of the most active chokepoints in the world, crude oil is suddenly positioning itself to within striking distance of the four-year high of $126.41, with the global economy drawing down so fast it will eventually be running on fumes,” said Bob Yawger, director of energy futures at Mizuho.

Saudi tankers attacked

Yemen’s Houthis have opened a new front in the Iran war by targeting vessels carrying Saudi oil in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait after stating they would impose a naval blockade on shipments from Saudi Arabia. The Houthi militia attacked two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in a military operation, the group said on Thursday, with the Saudi Arabian state news agency, SPA, later confirming that one of the two vessels was ablaze after an assault while sailing in the Red Sea. SPA did not say who attacked the vessel.

“The escalation compounds the near-halt in Hormuz traffic and the sharp reduction in Iranian exports, intensifying concerns over near-term global availability,” Gelber and Associates wrote in a note.

Analysts estimate that the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb carry the equivalent of roughly a quarter of the world’s oil supply.

Still, following the attacks, two Chinese supertankers carrying a combined 4 million barrels of Saudi Arabian oil managed to exit the Red Sea via the Bab el-Mandeb Strait on Thursday, shipping data showed.

Goldman Sachs said Brent might exceed $120 a barrel in the fourth quarter and average $100 next year if the strait remains disrupted through 2027, with further upside if the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and Suez Canal also suffer persistent disruption.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said an oil tanker caught fire after an explosion while attempting to follow a mined route in the southern area of the strait near the coast of Oman and that two others had turned back.

The Guards said the strait was under their control and “completely closed” while US actions continued in the region, warning that no tanker would be allowed to enter or leave without coordination with Iran.

US President Donald Trump promised “major military punishment” for Iran and its Houthi allies.

Hormuz traffic stalls

Iranian strikes on vessels crossing the strait have resulted in a drop in non-Iranian oil tankers traversing the waterway, and the reintroduction of a US naval blockade targeting Iranian ports likely has resulted in Iranian oil loadings falling to zero from 1.5 million to 2 million barrels per day at the start of the month, Giovanni Staunovo, a UBS analyst, said.

As a result of fewer shipments exiting the strait, loading activity within the Gulf has fallen to 2.5 million bpd over the past seven days, compared with 6 million bpd over the past 30 days, Staunovo added.

To shore up supplies, seven core OPEC+ members — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Oman — are likely, when they meet on August 2, to increase their output target by about 188,000 barrels per day for September, three sources told Reuters, even as the war hinders some of the group’s members from pumping more.

MK Moshe Saada (Likud) said on Thursday that “an attack against Iran is approaching,” during an interview with Channel 14 News.

Saada’s comments were made against the backdrop of growing tensions between the United States and Iran, and assessments that an escalation could occur in the coming days.

During the interview, while discussing Iran and the possibility of further escalation, Saada said, “We all know that we are approaching an attack on Iran, perhaps even as early as this weekend; those are the assessments.”

The channel quickly presented the remarks under the headline, “MK Moshe Saada’s slip of the tongue.” However, this was not the first time Saada had publicly addressed the possibility of an imminent attack.

Over the past week, he suggested on several occasions that, in his assessment, military action could take place within days. His remarks therefore appeared to be deliberate rather than an accidental disclosure.

At the same time, Channel 13 News reporter Michael Shemesh reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office was furious over Saada’s comments on Channel 14. According to the report, the Prime Minister’s Office viewed the remarks seriously.

Saada claims he was referring to US attack

Saada responded, “I suggest that everyone listen to the full interview and discover that I was speaking about an attack by Trump and the United States.”

Saada’s remarks come amid heightened sensitivity surrounding any public discussion of security matters, particularly at a time when regional tensions are at their peak.

It remains to be seen whether the anger in the Prime Minister’s Office will result in practical measures, whether Saada’s remarks will prompt broader public or political criticism, and whether they harmed state security. 

The US FDA has said it is investigating a new outbreak of cyclosporiasis, with 72 cases tied to an as-yet-unidentified source.

The agency’s announcement on Wednesday adds to the growing number of cyclosporiasis cases reported across the US Midwest, including Michigan and four other states.

The Food and Drug Administration said it has initiated a traceback to identify the source of the latest outbreak.

Cyclosporiasis is an intestinal illness caused by the Cyclospora parasite. People can become infected after eating or drinking contaminated food or water, and symptoms can include diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, and fatigue.

The CDC has identified 4,173 laboratory-confirmed, domestically acquired cyclosporiasis cases in the United States since May 1 and is investigating more than 7,400 additional reported infections that have yet to be laboratory confirmed, many of them in Michigan and Ohio. The figures come as Michigan has reported 7,171 cases so far this year, while Ohio has also recorded a sharp rise in infections.

Taylor Farms recalls lettuce sourced from central Mexico

Regulators have linked the broader spread in the Midwest, the largest foodborne illness outbreak in the US in recent years, to a Taylor Farms plant in Mexico.

On July 17, Taylor Farms recalled iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico. The recall includes lettuce sold in retail stores, served in restaurants and distributed to food service customers.

However, Mexico said on Tuesday there was no evidence yet to suggest that lettuce sourced from it caused the outbreak in the US

The outbreak has also affected restaurant operators. Shares of Yum Brands fell nearly 10% last week after reports linked Taco Bell to the spread of the illness, although analysts have said the impact on the chain’s sales is unlikely to cause lasting damage. Taco Bell has since stopped using lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms.

Cyclospora infections typically spike in the US during the spring and summer months as warmer climates help the parasite thrive, often leading to multistate investigations by health authorities.