Israeli Hasbara is Dead, Long Live American Hasbara for Israel!

by Boaz Lieberman, Strategic Crisis Management Advisor, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Over the past years we have grown accustomed to analyze American politics via "sides:" Trump or Biden? Republicans or Democrats? Israel supporters or opponents?

But behind the daily headlines hides a much more complex reality than that, and whoever doesn't understand this is liable to wake up in a few years and find that Israeli-American relations stand upon weaker foundations than they thought – and dangerously so.

The biggest mistake that Israel can make today is to believe that our strategic relationship with the U.S. is guaranteed forever, simply because of inertia. This is not at all certain; the relationship requires maintenance, investment, and deep understanding of the changes that American politics is undergoing.

For years, the Democratic party has been in a clear process of distancing itself from some of its traditional policies towards Israel. A new generation of activists, Congressmen, and media personalities is now adopting positions that view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the glasses of balance of power, colonialism, and ethnic identities. For them, Israel is no longer a small country fighting for its survival, but a strong state that they see as part of the network of Western powers.

On the other hand, there is certainly no need to eulogize Democratic support for Israel. Many parts of the Democratic establishment still see Israel as a vital American ally. They may be using different terminology and even tones, but they are not all enemies of Israel.

At the same time, within the Republican Party too, a deep change is taking place. The conservative right of Ronald Reagan was an international, activist right that was very willing to activate American force around the world when necessary. The movement that Donald Trump is leading is not the same thing; though not necessarily isolationist, it does make sure to constantly ask before every decision: Does this directly serve American interests?

This is where two names come into the picture – the two most significant figures in the post-Trump era: Marco Rubio and JD Vance.

Secretary of State Rubio represents the more traditional conservative viewpoint. He sees Israel as a strategic asset of the first degree in the struggle against Iran, China, Islamic terrorism, and anti-Western axes.

Vice President Vance, on the other hand – 13 years younger than Rubio – is a man of the new generation of Republicans. He is not anti-Israel, but views the world from the vantage point of the typical middle-class American, and primarily wants to know what he or she would like.

Israel cannot afford to take sides in this succession struggle.

With Rubio, we must speak the language of national security, technology, intelligence, and the struggle against Iran. With Vance, we must speak an entirely different language, and present the position that Israel is not a burden on the United States, but rather an asset that saves it from fighting wars, losing soldiers, and spending money. Israel does not ask for American troops, but rather fights on its own against forces that threaten, inter alia, American interests.

Yet alongside the political challenge, Israel also faces an even greater trial: the loss of influence in the arena of public opinion. And this brings us to the part that Israel still refuses to understand: The old-style Israeli Hasbara (PR and image-building) is dead.

For years, we thought the way to convince the world was to send a spokesperson to a studio, present a map, show a video, and explain why we are right. This method worked in the era of institutionalized media, when the public received information through a limited number of television channels and newspapers. The world of 2026 looks completely different. America's Gen Z does not learn about Israel via CNN or Fox news, but rather through TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and podcasts. They don't listen to official spokesmen, but rather to people they trust from social media.

Israel must therefore shift away from traditional Hasbara, to "diplomacy of influence."

Instead of sending Israelis with perfect English to talk on TV, we must invest in forming a broad coalition of Americans who will speak for Israel, in American. No longer must there be Israeli hasbarah; there must be American hasbarah for Israel!

The voices that should lead this campaign need not necessarily be Israeli ambassadors or politicians. They must rather be former American combat soldiers or officers, influential conservatives, Evangelical leaders, hi-tech personalities, parents who are concerned about campus anti-Semitism, professors, conservative Hispanics, and moderate Democrats.

When an American explains to another American why Israel is important for U.S. security, the message is heard ten times louder than when an Israeli explains this.

And our second mistake is this: focusing on Washington, D.C. exclusively.

The real battle for the future of Israeli-U.S. relations is taking place today on university campuses: at Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, the University of Pennsylvania, and the like. It is there, and not in "traditional American support for Israel," that the consciousness of the coming decade's journalists, judges, members of Congress, and governors is being shaped.

If Israel does not invest its efforts there now, this year, it will discover in ten years that the problem is not who sits in the White House, but what the American public itself thinks.

For this reason, a new pro-Israel strategy is required, based on three principles: strengthening bipartisan support for Israel, among both Democrats and Republicans; building a deep "network of influence" within American society in its entirety and not just in the political system; and replacing traditional Hasbara sources with authentic American voices.

Israel need not choose between Vance and Rubio, or between Republicans and Democrats. It must simply choose America – all of it. Maintaining that broad alliance with America in general was historically one of Israel’s greatest strategic successes ever since its establishment. In the current polarized, raucous, and rapidly changing world, our strategy for the decades to come must be the return to that comprehensive approach.

Learning from Zelensky to Stand Up for Ourselves and Restore Trump's Respect

by Leonid Baratz, Investigative journalist and Middle Eastern correspondent for the Ukrainian media, translated by Hillel Fendel.

It's always easier to pressure allies than enemies, as the United States continually proves. This is especially true with a president who tends to operate based on instincts that appear to change quickly. In Israel's current situation, it would do well to remember the lesson taught by Ukrainian President Zelensky when he faced American anger. 

Many remember the awkward, difficult scene that played out in the Oval Office in February 2025, when U.S. President Trump and Vice President Vance castigated Zelensky before the cameras of the entire world. They essentially "advised" him to show gratitude to the U.S. and allow it to determine the terms of a ceasefire with Russia. "You don't have the cards," Trump told him sharply. "We have all the cards, and without us, you have nothing." Zelensky did not cave in, and paid a heavy diplomatic price for a few weeks.

And here we are now, less than 18 months later, and the ones without the cards are none other than the Russians. The world sees Russian fuel tanks explode into the sky and dozens of Russian refineries knocked out of action, leading to long lines of people waiting for fuel throughout Russia and even the Crimean peninsula. It's Moscow, not Kiev, that is now asking for various kinds of truces, with Ukraine largely on the offensive. A year ago, Ukraine carried out the unprecedented Operation Pautina, which had been painstakingly planned for a year and a half, in which drones hidden inside portable wooden houses were smuggled on civilian trucks deep into Russian territory. At the designated moment, the roofs were opened remotely and the drones soared towards Russian nuclear sites located thousands of kilometers from the front line.

Interestingly, less than two weeks later, Israel attacked Iran in the 12-Day War known as Operation Rising Lion, which was also based on deep and patient intelligence penetration into enemy territory. It is difficult not to recognize in the Ukrainian offensive a familiar fingerprint of Israeli combat doctrine, which immediately raises the question of whether Kiev may have served as an initial testing ground for the implementation of these unique tactics. We may not know for many years whether Israel and Ukraine were working with some sort of cooperation, or whether this was just a coincidental case of "great minds thinking alike…"

In any event, Zelensky rebounded well following the White House dressing down, to the point where this month, at the G-7 summit in France, Trump himself admitted that the Ukranians are currently winning the war with Russia. Trump then surprised his allies when he announced the restoration of sharp sanctions against the Russian oil sector. Kiev's impressive military accomplishments would have been of no significance without an aggressive, ongoing diplomatic push, that was able to translate the situation at the front into the language of international interests.

This is precisely the lesson that Israel must learn and internalize at this point. It is well-known that the Americans are wielding a heavy pressure crush on PM Netanyahu and the government in Jerusalem to withdraw from the buffer zone in southern Lebanon, or at least to cease responding to murderous Hizbullah attacks such as those that have killed five Israeli soldiers in recent days. We must not blame our own government; on the contrary, it is our duty as a public to provide our leaders with our resolute support so that they can repel these foreign dictates, and certainly not succumb to the winds of concession blowing from many of our own television studios.

Caving to U.S. Would be an Iranian Victory

We in Israel, and the Americans as well, should have no trouble seeing who would profit from and rejoice at an Israeli withdrawal. Israel's historic task in the Middle East never relied only on its military strength, but chiefly on its image as the only regional player who can contain the Iranian axis – an image upon which the Abraham Accords is largely predicated. But the moment that the President of the United States declares that Israel is unable to complete its mission in Lebanon, and suggests that the job be passed to Turkish-influenced Syria, this image suffers a death blow.

Every time that Damascus or Ankara are perceived as being able to do what Jerusalem can't do, or is being stopped from doing, this rocks the very foundations on which Israel's position stands. It is therefore no coincidence that precisely the Qatar-Turkey axis are the main beneficiaries of a scenario in which we cede security responsibility in southern Lebanon.

Israel simply cannot afford to allow itself to retreat and thus gladden Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. We must therefore learn from the Ukrainian paradigm. From a historical perspective, it appears that Zelensky has emerged as a "Jewish" or "Israeli"-type leader much more than expected – and we have no reason to be embarrassed to take an example from him.

We must complete the operational cleanup of Hizbullah's stronghold in southern Lebanon, without leaving this task to outsiders. Iran must be shown with unmistakable force who controls the scene. Only then, just as happened with Ukraine, will President Trump's temporary anger be turned into renewed affection and respect - for ultimately he respects only results, not begging.

It was just a year ago that we started a war against those whom we called the modern-day Amalek – with very impressive results, including the elimination of the Ayatollah Khamenei and the weakening of Iran's military infrastructures. However, once we started the job, we must complete it, in the spirit of the Biblical injunction to totally wipe out Amalek. Amalek cannot be left half-wounded, we cannot stop the war in the middle, and we must certainly not endanger our very existence with transient surrender agreements. Even top officials in the US defense establishment and the Republican Party acknowledge that the current agreement is shameful and defeatist.

Most dangerously, the Iranian regime justifiably interprets the international pressure upon Israel as a green light to continue its multi-front war against us.  This not only endangers world stability and direct American interests, it also encourages the fanatical Iranian leadership to continue to pursue its nuclear program. Iran seems to have learned in the recent past that its strategies have been successful in forcing the West's hand and even bringing it close to its knees.

We know that our interests and those of the United States do not always overlap. That's OK. We must remind the Americans, however, that unfair accusations and threats against us are very harmful to Israel's attempts to ensure our international legitimacy, and even fuel anti-Semitism across the world.

We must learn from Zelensky, and from many of our own leaders in the recent and far-off past, that true security does not come from blind adherence to our allies, as strong as they may be. A nation that knows how to stand up for its own interests on the battlefield, and in the international arena, needs no outside confirmation to know that it is truly independent and strong.

Israel's Northern Border Must Remain Israeli!

All eyes are on the Israel-Lebanon border because of Israel's defensive war against Hizbullah. Under no scenario can Israel afford to leave it.

by Orit Strook, Israeli Cabinet Minister, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Throughout the last weeks (with a small hiatus ever since the US and Iran signed their controversial "memo of understanding"), wherever I have been in Israel, and whatever I may be engaged in doing, my heart finds itself drawn to the north. Occupying my thoughts are the northern towns of Metulah, Zar'it, Admit and Avivit, Misgav Am and Manara, and all those places situated on and protecting our northern border, yet forced to live with daily bomb sirens. The residents are impelled to look heavenward umpteen times a day to check if bomb-laden drones are on their way over. And each time they do, they also have to ask themselves (and me, via text messages or phone calls): Is the IDF staying in place to do the work, or Heaven forbid, clearing out?

Our northern compatriots know quite well what the IDF is doing in Lebanon, and what existential threat they are busy saving us from, day in and day out. For many years it was they who cried and warned about what was happening on the other side of the border: the digging of tunnels, lookouts on Israeli civilian and military positions, Iranian money flowing uninterruptedly to Lebanese villages, and the tremendous extent to which Hizbullah positions were being built up amidst the villagers. For 17 years they tried to wake up the security and government echelons – but these were 17 years of relative quiet, and who wanted to hear about war and tunnels and stark reality when they could so easily be ignored? It was truly a case of, "Quiet – we're arming."

And now, this terrible truth is being revealed in its full frightening danger: kilometer after kilometer of tunnels dozens of meters underground, with thousands of weapons, innocent-looking houses that are actually military outposts, and invasion plans that wouldn't shame the 7^th of October. And now our dedicated soldiers are combing the area, kilometer after kilometer, destroying the destruction machine the terrorists were building for us under the guise of the 17-year quiet – under the unsuspecting noses and closed eyes of those who were supposed to be in charge of preventing terrorism from within Lebanon: UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted at the end of the Second Lebanon War, entrusted – abandoned, more correctly – our security to the flimsy UN force called UNIFIL, and to the Lebanese army, a third of whose soldiers belong to the Shia community. Bound by that wretched resolution, we did not act to remove the threat growing on our border under the apathetic eyes of these two "forces."

Thanks to G-d's mercies, our northern border did not see an Oct. 7^th-like infiltration and massacre. This is truly a tremendous miracle, which we cannot take for granted. But the threat still exists, in the form of the infrastructures that were built there, ready and waiting for Hizbullah orders to "Start the attack!" A fair proportion of the tunnels and outposts have been destroyed, and many terrorists have been killed - but under American pressure, the job is far from over.

The ceasefire outline agreed upon in the past included a clause that the IDF is permitted to continue destroying any emerging threat across the border - and indeed the IDF and our other security agencies invested immense efforts in these counter-activities. But as time passed, the picture became increasingly clear: It is impossible to thwart terrorism solely from the outside, from the other side of the border – especially when we are supposed to count on help from other bodies, which never comes. Everyone now knows that the past plans for Lebanon have failed, and we may and must not return to them.

This is why what we have been doing for the past few weeks is so important – and why we must continue to do so, no matter what agreement President Trump and the Iranians come to regarding our future. We must continue operating within southern Lebanon, by ourselves, to destroy the terrorist monster growing there against us. The IDF now controls over 600 square kilometers (some 230 square miles) of southern Lebanon - Hizbullah territory, where no Muslim civilians now live - and it is being cleaned out of terrorist infrastructures such as tunnels, bunkers, and weapon stockpiles. It must be done, for the future of Israel's security.

We may not allow ourselves to stop this work, or to be forced into withdrawing and trying to secure ourselves only from within Israel; this has failed, cannot succeed, and may not be tried again.

I paid a shiva (consolation) visit to the family of fallen soldier Ohad Yaari last week; he was one of six IDF soldiers killed in southern Lebanon in the first half of this month (six more have been killed since then). His father Dudu pleaded with me: "Don't stop, don't give in, we're counting on you." I promised that we would not.

Ohad's family also asked me one more thing: to publicize on the eve of the Sabbath their call to "strengthen the light and kindness" in memory of their son: to light an extra Sabbath candle in each home and to commit to doing one extra good deed, so as to enter the holy Sabbath with an uplifted spirit and having added light and loving-kindness to the world in loving memory of Ohad, may G-d avenge his blood.

Can Small Numbers of Women Replace Hundreds of Male Tank Core Members?

Courageous IDF commanders must take a public stand. Op-ed.

by Emmanuel Shilo, editor of the Besheva weekly, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The announcement by first a dozen Hesder yeshiva heads, then another dozen, and now a full half of the Yeshivot Hesder in Israel – followed even by several army preparatory academies – that they will not send their students to serve in the IDF's Armored Corps is a resounding wake-up call and a bright red warning light to the IDF top brass.

Declarations of that nature are not issued easily from yeshivot whose students are a primary and high-quality component of the army's field forces. A glorious combat heritage of Hesder tank soldiers, beginning over 50 years ago, is now threatened with extinction, due to a feminist cause that childishly cares for nothing other than to smash glass ceilings. The problem continues to fester because of the irresponsible cowardice of senior IDF officials who fear confronting it and setting boundaries.

In the Artillery Corps, it's already a lost cause. The hesder yeshivot stopped sending their students to serve there a while ago, given that it became a totally mixed service corps in which the gender boundaries set by Jewish Law can simply not be observed. This has led to a major lack in Artillery reserves personnel, as male students who would have served in the reserves for years afterwards have been replaced by females who, for various predictable reasons, invariably do not show up to serve in the reserves. This is the problem that the Armored Corps, too, will soon face, if nothing is done to stop the introduction of girls into tanks.

It must be emphasized that the deployment of females into the Armored Corps has nothing to do with a lack of manpower. There is no such shortage, because the number of tank soldiers is limited in any event by the amount of tanks in the IDF. At present this number has been reduced, for various reasons; but even if it again rises, there will be no shortage of male soldiers to man them – on condition that the relatively few women are removed and the large number of yeshiva students can return.

From an operational standpoint, the integration of female combat soldiers into the Armored Corps primarily creates unnecessary difficulties. The pilot programs conducted so far have not been a success story. It is no coincidence that the females who were qualified to serve as tank crew members were specifically deployed in non-maneuvering battalions. And although the actions of the female 'Pere' company on October 7 were effective and even saved lives, their battle was not exactly Avigdor Kahalani's battle in the Yom Kippur War. In fact, they were later not permitted to fight inside Gaza.

The current decision to begin training female tank crew members for maneuvering battalions does not address any operational need, but rather only ideological feminist desires. The General Staff orders state unequivocally the right of every religious soldier to demand gender-combat combat service. During this past and ongoing war, it happened many times that troops had to remain locked inside their armored vehicles for days at a time. It goes without saying that it is impossible to maintain basic standards of modesty between men and women under such conditions. Single-gender tank crews do not offer a sufficient solution, because of overnight stays in a building or in defense encampments. Even separate battalions for female soldiers would not be effective, because tank battalions are split into smaller units and attached to infantry and combat engineering battalions and brigades.

And we have not even touched on the expected drop in operational abilities. The idea of ignoring or overlooking physical differences and abilities between the genders is simply dangerous. As several of the Yeshiva heads have said, "The army's main goal is to win, and that critical value is being shunted aside in the drive to satisfy feminist whims."

Where Do the Hareidim Fit In?

Good question. The "lack of consideration," to say the least, for the religious soldiers doesn't exactly encourage hareidi boys to enlist in the army. The hareidi public looks on and says to itself, "If the IDF refuses to take the religious-Zionist public's needs into account, after all the human losses it suffered, just because of a few girls, then why should we believe that they will fulfill their promises to us in the long term?"

This problem must be solved, and quickly. If the IDF commanders don't wake up and explain to the Supreme Court that their latest decision demanding an introductory trial of recruiting women into the Armored Corps this coming November – and we all know that such "trials" quickly become the norm – is simply unworkable, the Prime Minister and Defense Minister will have no choice but to intervene. If not, the military ramifications, as well as those caused by breaking apart the delicate fabric of our society, will become much too dangerous for the State of Israel to safely absorb.

Note 1: In Israel's over 70 Hesder yeshivot, students undergo a five-year program combining Yeshiva study and army service. Yeshiva preparatory academies (mechinot) provide a one-year yeshiva program for students who then go on to serve in the army for three years.

Note 2: After the publication of this article IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir decided that the "pilot" program to integrate female soldiers in the Armed Corps will not be held as planned in November.

Confusing the Ally for the Enemy

by Michael Puah, Director-General of the Jewish Leadership movement, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The massacre of Oct. 7^th should have taught us a basic lesson: Our enemy is not the settlers, those who work the land, or those building small new Jewish farms in Judea and Samaria (Yesha). The actual enemy is Palestinian terrorism, the goal of which is to banish Jews from their land – not just parts of it, but all of it, including Tel Aviv and elsewhere – and to destabilize the very existence of the State of Israel.

But it seems that despite the so-heavy price that we paid then, some members of our security apparatus are still caught in the old and dangerous conceptions. Instead of seeing those who build the farms as a pioneering force that buttresses the Israeli hold on our only homeland and strengthens our security, they all too frequently treat them as if they were the enemy. Large IDF and police forces are deployed to evacuate the outposts, clash with young Jewish pioneers, and destroy their structures, while not far away our real enemies are engaged in terrorist activity, agricultural theft, illegal takeovers of lands, and violent riots.

The message that this gives over to the Palestinians is destructive. When they see the IDF investing such efforts against the Jewish settlement enterprise, it fills them with motivation. They feel that the State of Israel itself is unsure about Jewish rights to live in and settle their land. Instead of deterring their terrorism, this policy encourages the Arabs to believe that their pressure and violence and hatred are working!

It's not only unfair to the settlers, it is also a very grave security miscalculation. The farms and outposts in Yesha have proven time and again their importance in the campaign to safeguard state lands, to prevent hostile take-overs, and to create an Israeli presence in strategic areas. Many of those involved in building the outposts and farms serve in the IDF reserves, in stints of weeks and months at a time. When they are treated as if they don't have basic human rights, let alone civilian rights, this impairs not only their dignity, but also the basic trust between the public they represent and the state institutions.

Whoever reads the news know that this also brings to the fore a basic contradiction: For long months we have been hearing from the IDF and the media of the grave shortage of IDF manpower, and that all the hareidim must be drafted in order to ease the load on the reservists – yet behold, when there is a "need" to destroy a farm or settlers' hilltop shacks, we suddenly see that dozens and sometimes even hundreds of fighters and Border Guardsmen and women are recruited for the mission.

If there really is a manpower shortage in the army, these forces should be deployed not to destroy Jewish settlement points, but to protect the roads from rock-throwers and worse, thwart terrorism, confiscate arms, and arrest hostile elements busy building more and more illegal Arab houses. The answer must be demanded: Is there a manpower shortage, or not?

The problem is not only operational, but also conceptual. For years, the settlers and Yesha residents have warned of the erosion of anti-terrorism deterrence. But instead of listening to them, the opposite was done: extensive efforts were invested in monitoring, restricting, and arresting them. The Simchat Torah slaughter showed in the most brutal way what happens when those who identify dangers and warn against them are treated as the enemies themselves.

The responsibility is not only upon the commanders in the field, for they are instruments of the policies and instructions they receive from above. The responsibility lies, first and foremost, with the top IDF echelons, which determine the order of priorities. They have clearly decided that the pioneer settlers are not acting in consonance with the conceptions in which many of our civil and military leadership is trapped.

The destruction of settlement points is very reminiscent of what happened prior to Oct. 7^th, when the radio equipment that was used to learn of and transmit reports of Hamas movements was confiscated. It can also be likened to when civilian patrol and defense units in the Gaza envelope were dismantled.

But even above this level of command stands our government. Defense Minister Yisrael Katz may not simply suffice with receiving reports retroactively. He must constantly examine whether the policies applied "on the ground" serve Israel's security needs – or harm them. When IDF troops are allocated to face off against Jewish pioneers instead of to fight terrorism, it is his duty to intervene and demand a change.

This is the clear responsibility of the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The nationalist public voted for a government that pledged to strengthen and secure the 550,000-strong Jewish population in Yesha, and change failed military policies – and not to target those who work tirelessly to support them and enhance their growth.

The State of Israel has to wake up and clearly distinguish between its enemies and those who love and support it. The IDF must concentrate its efforts on fighting terrorism, protecting Israeli citizens, and supporting our grasp on the Land. The Prime Minister and Defense Minister must make absolutely sure that the policies being carried out match the lessons learned so dearly since October '23.

We call for an end to confusion: Targeting and destroying the new farms and farmers encourages the hopes of those who wish to throw us out of our Land!