The Same Headlines, 47 Years Later

by Haggai Huberman, Israeli journalist and author (written for the religious zionist periodical - Matzav Haruach), translated by Hillel Fendel.

The headlines of the past few days about Iran reminded me that we read the same ones exactly 47 years ago, in Tevet 5739, January 1979. The newspapers then blared repeatedly "Riots Throughout Iran Threaten the Regime." At the end of December 1978, the front page of Maariv blared out, "Total Paralysis in Iran's Economy, Observers: 'Regime Change is Just a Matter of Days.'" Ten days later, Davar announced, "Chaos in Teheran, Violent Protests in Tabriz, Shortages of Gas and Oil Paralyze the Country."

It's as if the headline writers took a page from the future headlines from 2026 – with one small difference: In 1979, the riots toppled the Shah of Iran, and brought to power Ayatollah Khomeini. This time, it could very well be the exact opposite, albeit with a change of names.

It was reported a few days ago that the current leader, dictator Ali Khamenei, had prepared an escape plan to Moscow in the event that his regime falls. The plan reportedly includes a quick exit for him and his family in case the riots continue and the army withdraws its support for him. With thousands of protestors dead so far at the hands of the government, according to various sources, the situation in Iran is clearly very explosive – with positive ramifications for the Middle East and the entire world. 

U.S. President Donald Trump, fresh off his (so far) successful game-changing coup in Venezuela, now has the chance to influence, yet again, the entire balance of power in the Middle East. This will be an opportunity to rectify the blunder made, for "politically correct" reasons, by Jimmy Carter. 

Nuclear Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the Houthis, the Shiites in Iraq – all of these plagues are the result of Carter's total lack of understanding that led him not to intervene in Iran in late 1978. By so doing, he enabled the ascent of Khomeini and all the evil he brought with him. 

What happened, simply, was that this Democratic, near-sighted, liberal president felt that "human rights" in Iran were more important than his own country's strength. Carter could have prevented the Shah's fall and exile, if he would have given him full backing when the anti-government riots started. But he refused to do this because he suspected the Shah of being soft on "civil rights." He explained that he had no intention of intervening in "Iran's internal political affairs," but rather that he was primarily interested in stability and preventing violence. He added for the record that the U.S. would prefer that the Shah continue to "play a central role in the government," but that that was for the Iranian nation to decide… 

In short, the President of the United States abandoned his long-time ally, the Shah of Iran, and tacitly allowed the rise of Khomeinism. 

Allow me to quote from "Debacle: The American Failure in Iran" (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), in which authors William Lewis and Michael Ledeen write [translated from the Hebrew translation]: "The fundamental problem throughout the crisis was the absence of the President. Carter never took an active role in the discussions, never gave any clue as to what solution he preferred, and never placed the Iran question in its overall context..." 

They also wrote: "The lack of American support for [the Shah's] regime caused trembling among the pro-West rulers in the Middle East." The U.S. even refused to offer its long-time ally safe refuge if and when he would need it. "The abandonment of the Shah after he left Iran proved to the world that no friend of the U.S. could rely on American help if his situation would be shaken." [Upon fleeing Iran in January 1979, the Shah traveled to Egypt, Morocco, The Bahamas, and Mexico before entering the U.S. in October for medical treatment of lymphatic cancer. He was later granted asylum in Egypt, where he died in 1980.]

Back to January 2026: Pres. Trump has issued all the right warnings, showing support for the protestors and providing a backwind for their efforts to topple the Ayatollahs' regime. It remains for us just to wait and see if the blustery announcements will be followed by actions.  

Revolution Against Hamas?

Hope for change might not depend entirely on the U.S., however. MEMRI reports that Egyptian journalist Ahmad Abd Al-Wahhab - deputy editor of the Egyptian government daily Akhbar Al-Yawm and columnist for a Saudi news site - has written that Hamas has brought devastation upon Gaza and caused a deep crisis of trust between Hamas and the local population. He argues that the Gazans now realize that Hamas is responsible for their disaster, and therefore no longer believe its “resistance” slogans that blame Israel for their misery. He warns, according to MEMRI's summation, that a deepening of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza could lead to a public explosion against Hamas.

If so, we may assume that given the downfall of the Assad regime in Syria a year ago, which came about in the wake of Hizbullah's collapse in Lebanon and the blows delivered to Iran, it is not unlikely that a collapse of the current Iranian regime – a very long-time prime supporter of Hamas – will encourage the Gazan public to rise up and topple Hamas. Perhaps this is not very realistic at present, but history is replete with surprises, as we all know. The most illogical things are often those that most influenced world history. 

[Translator's note: However, Ynet reported this week, in more than one article, that Israel (!) is continuing to provide economic support to Hamas. No explanation was provided.]

Let's Not Stop Now!

by Elisha Yered, Hilltop Resident and Leader, translated by Hillel Fendel.

One of the most welcome items on the list of Israel's gains from the war in Gaza is most definitely the unprecedented upswing in settlement construction in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) over the past two years.

Hilltop outposts springing up like mushrooms after the rain, broad support from the veteran communities, even the establishment of many farms with full defense-establishment approval – all that sums up the news from Yesha these days. For the first time in years, the IDF appears to be learning important lessons from what happened to us on Oct 7th, and seems to understand the importance of settling the non-populated areas. The coin has dropped, and the army truly understands the role of the new farms and hilltops as a forward defensive shield for the rest of the Jews in Yesha.

The IDF commanders no longer view the settlement outposts as hostile troublemakers, but rather as part and parcel of our common strategy. This has had a sweeping impact on the pace of construction, and enabled breakthroughs toward goals no one had imagined. 

But recently, something seems to have changed. Activists on the ground have begun to sense more friction in the atmosphere, as if there are those who want to turn the clock in Yesha back to before Oct. 7th. 

In a recent briefing on the security developments in Yesha, some of the officers complained that they're losing control over the hilltops and farms. "I support the settlement enterprise," one of them said, "but it doesn't make sense that 70% of the incidents I have to deal with are because of rocks or other attacks on a shepherd in some isolated hilltop."

This type of complaint, heard increasingly more as the front lines of the Jewish settlement enterprise move further out, may be factually true – but it's wrong in its basic approach. 

It is precisely how we as a society tackle this issue that will determine whether the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria will thrive, numerically and security-wise – or whether it will actually regress back to the pre-Oct. 7th days. And that is why we must explain the issues with the clarity and seriousness they deserve.

 The most effective defense against the hostile Arab population in Yesha is built upon three elements: Distancing the line of contact from the civilian populace; placing the enemy in a perpetual state of defensiveness via rear-guard military action; and extremely sharp deterrence. Let us take them one by one.

Distancing the line of contact: Before the recent war, the IDF's objectives in Yesha were primarily to protect the fences of the communities and the roads connecting them. The line of contact was frighteningly close. If the enemy managed to break through, it meant possibly deadly attacks within the towns and against the passing vehicles. Since army units cannot be everywhere at once, car stonings were a near-daily occurrence.  

But all this changed wherever Jewish farms and hilltops were allowed to flower. Long dangerous roads became safe for travel. The Binyamin Regional Council, north of Jerusalem, released statistics showing 459 terrorist attacks on the Alon Highway in 2022, when there were about five hilltops and outposts in the area – and only 52 attacks in the first half of 2025, with the number of points now over 20. 

The operational concept was simple. Instead of Arab terrorists disguised as shepherds moving freely among the roadside olive trees to scout out the Jews passing by, control of the area came under the control of the Jewish residents of the hilltops or farms, thus pushing the Arab villagers back a kilometer or more. The line of contact was moved significantly, and the chance of a terrorist infiltration was tremendously reduced. The enemy's attempted attacks are now directed at the grazing areas and the shepherds, instead of at the Jewish communities. 

Consider for example the case of the terrorists from Dir Debwan, between Psagot and the route leading to Kokhav HaShachar. Despite the hard work of IDF Unit 636, including night ambushes and investigations leading to arrests, Arab firebombs and rock attacks were a matter of routine. But then 636 left, the terrorists became bolder and came closer, and the attacks resumed – until the establishment of the Sde Yonatan hilltop and Hanina Farm, which together turned the area into Jewish grazing land. Since then, not one attack has been carried out!

The terrorists' motivation has not decreased, however – and this leads to the second stage: Military action. The enemy must be put on the constant defensive – and not, as was the case before the war, allowed to maintain his precious daily "fabric of life." One of the ideas behind the new hilltops is that the Arab enemy can never know what's coming next, what changes will be made in the fields around him, and even whether his own little hilltop will still be his a month from now. Instead of us having to hold emergency security meetings regarding Arab infiltrations, it is now the Arab shepherds and farmers who are worried about how to respond to the changing circumstances. Clashes between the sides now take place in areas that were totally out of our bounds before – far from most Jewish families. 

Why So Far Out? 

Many in the army encourage and support the existence of Jewish grazing areas as buffer zones, but they still ask, "Why do you have to keep going with your sheep further deep into the area? It's dangerous and creates friction for no reason." Similarly, they view with favor farms right outside the communities' fences, but a hilltop further out is a "threat" that must be evacuated. 

This is a mistake. The way to manage the constant terrorist threats is by moving them further away from the population centers, thus minimizing them in both quantity and quality. By forbidding the young shepherds of Shalisha Farm to come near the terrorists of Al-Mughair, the latter will come close themselves and attack the communities of the Shilo bloc. It's very simple – as the army understands when dealing with the urban-area terrorists in Sh'chem and Tulkarm. 

This brings us to the third element of the correct strategy: Deterrence. There's something paradoxical about this element: The more effective it is, the more we forget the existence of the threat. When the enemy is deterred, and shrewdly pretends that he is seeking peace, many in Israel and around the world begin to say once again, "They're so calm and peaceful, why fight with them?" We then let up, they attack forcefully, such as on Oct. 7th, and the dangerous cycle begins again.

Similarly regarding the outposts. When the foreboding Salam Fayad plan came to light – the PA strategy of expansion and creating facts on the ground – support increased for Jewish growth and construction in Yesha. But now that we are thriving so wonderfully, warnings are once again being sounded against bursting forth "too much." 

This problem has only one solution: We must not heed the voices that seek to weaken and hold us back. Our fantastic achievements on the ground can be retained only if we continue to advance. 

Junking the "Quiet" Approach

Every IDF officer in the field must remind himself that it might cost him extra efforts in dealing with a few more incidents at first - but within a short time, the security benefits will outweigh those several-fold. And this without even having mentioned the benefits in thwarting the establishment of a Palestinian state. In short, the idea that "quiet" is the ultimate goal must be totally junked in favor of the push to advance and constantly improve our position on the ground. 

The officers must appreciate and encourage those who are willing to place themselves on the front lines, for the sake of security for the entire country. 

Over the past two years, there has been a strong turn away from the dangers of the "conception" – the idea that the Arab enemy can be contained if we just give a little here and concede there. This change can be noted almost throughout the government, army, media and elsewhere. This process must not stop! Any delay in utilizing this historic opportunity would be a "weeping for generations." As the Torah states, "Let us ascend to the Land – for we can do it!"

Qatargate and the Trump Bear Hug

by Tzvi Moses, founder of the Shilo Institute, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The Trump-Netanyahu summit in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, this week was relatively successful, but not a few problems still remain unresolved. Trump's remarks about Erdogan and the Turks are worrisome, and though he spoke strongly of the need for Hamas to disarm "or else!" many things about it – such as who will do it, when, and how – still evade clear answers.

Trump's attitude towards Judea and Samaria, about which he acknowledged that he and Netanyahu do not agree 100% – "but I know he'll do the right thing" – is also of some concern. The same is true for Trump's approach to the Palestinian Authority in general. Netanyahu, for his part, did not look good [unsurprisingly, given the pressures he faces in the judicial, political, military and other spheres - ed.]. He looked pale and not confident, and the personal praises Trump heaped upon him - "There might not be an Israel right now if [it] had a different prime minister [other than Netanyahu]" - were a bit strange, and even pathetic. The same was true for the promise of a pardon for Netanyahu that Trump claimed to have received, which was immediately denied by the only man who can issue the problem, Israel's President Herzog. 

The bear hug given to Trump by the Israeli decision to grant Trump the Israeli Prize for Peace, and the profuse mutual compliments, actually made Netanyahu appear weak and dependent – as if he were a has-been hero who needs to be propped up by the great and mighty Trump.

On the other hand, it was comforting to see that politically and militarily, Israel's situation appears to be good, even if not 100% stable. The backing that Trump gave Netanyahu regarding Iran appears to be sufficient for now. 

But looming in the background is Qatargate – an absurd story that does not bode well for Israel's government. The story seems to be that three of Netanyahu's top media aides – Feldstein, Orich, and Einhorn – saw fit to give marketing and PR services to the State of Qatar. Their goal was apparently to help Qatar become the leading mediator in the talks with Hamas for the release of the hostages. It seems, however, that more than they helped Israel receive the hostages, they helped Hamas receive freedom for their own murderous terrorists from Israeli prisons. 

This is in addition to the fact that Qatar itself funded Hamas and enabled them to arm massively and build monstrous tunnels. Regarding such mediation as Qatar performed, it can be said, "Have you then murdered and also inherited?"

Netanyahu's main electoral rival Naftali Bennett is calling for the prime minister's aides to be sentenced to life imprisonment, for having apparently betrayed Israeli interests by sabotaging Israeli-Egyptian relations to the benefit of Qatar. The PM's office, and Netanyahu himself, truly appear to be on the ropes, beaten and battered. Diplomatically speaking, former Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer – who was very instrumental in attaining the release of the hostages and in receiving American support for the attack on Iran – is sorely missed. In general, the government does not appear to be functioning perfectly. With the Likud primaries coming up in the coming months, there do not seem to be many significant and serious party personalities ready for leadership positions. 

Netanyahu needs someone like Moses' father-in-law Jethro to advise him on delegating and sharing some of his authorities. It's time for Netanyahu to groom one or more successors; there are too many people in Israel who once served under Netanyahu and are now in the forefront of his opposition. 

The nationalist camp ought to shake off its long-held belief that without Netanyahu, the dictatorial left-wing will come to power. An unhealthy symbiosis has been created, wherein because of the right-wing's total dependence upon Netanyahu, he can use its fears to his advantage and receive its coddling almost unconditionally. The time has come for right-wingers to realize that this need not go on, especially in light of the rot that has taken root in his office and reached its climax in the very strange story of Qatargate. 

With the elections coming up some time in the next ten months, the right-wing would be well advised to rebuild itself, and encourage the many personalities that emerged, during and after the war, to lead. Instead of Qatargate, let this be a gate of opportunity to a new nationalist camp and a new future.

Between Sydney and Jerusalem

by Deganit Senker, former Director-General of the Ministry of Aliyah and Absorption and current Board Chairperson of Ofek Israeli, dedicated to encouraging and supporting Aliyah, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The murderous terrorist attack in Sydney, Australia last week was not just another "security incident" in a far-off country. This moment of deep crisis for Australian Jewry was another rung up the ladder of anti-Semitic escalation that has accompanied the Jewish people for at least the last decade, and especially since the Simchat Torah massacre over two years ago.

For the State of Israel, it is also a moment of testing: Will the State of Israel realize its responsibility to world Jewry, will it raise the gauntlet of leadership, and will it realize the direction connection between Jewish security around the world and the future of the Jewish national state?

Over the past decade, we have been witness to a steady and troubling rise in anti-Semitic incidents around the world. It has gotten worse over the past two years, to be sure, but the trend started well before. As early as 2015, with the attack on the HyperCacher kosher supermarket in Paris (17 murdered), and in 2017 with the brutal murder of Dr. Sarah Halimi, also in Paris, it became clear that Jews were once again no longer safe, even in the heart of democratic Europe. The Jewish response was swift: In the following year, approximately 7,500 Jews immigrated to Israel from France, compared to a previous annual average of some 2,200.

Nor has there been a shortage of attacks of varying intensity since then. There was the Pittsburgh temple massacre in 2018, the deadly supermarket shooting in Jersey City in 2019, and the fatal stabbing at a Chanukah celebration in Monsey the same year. The Corona plague was known in Jewish circles not only for the deaths it brought in its wake, but also for the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories it aroused. The pattern has become clear: Rising hatred, bursting violence, and then a Jewish arousal as the Children of Israel seek security, identity, and belonging.

Et Tu, Australia?

Even though the format began to become familiar, not many expected it to happen in Australia as well. This far-off, liberal country, with strict weapons laws, and with a healthy Jewish community strongly integrated into society at large, abruptly became an anti-Semitic terrorism arena. As of now, 15 Jews have died as a result of the Bondi Beach mass shooting, and 38 were injured, including children and Holocaust survivors. An incident of this type in a democratic, stable country that has long been considered safe for Jews is a flashing warning light to the entire Jewish world.

Aliyah from Australia is not tremendously dramatic – about 100 to 150 Jews "come home" each year. On the other hand, the Jewish leadership in Australia reports a threefold increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the country – a profoundly troubling trend.

And Australia is not alone. Amsterdam, a city well identified with liberalism and tolerance, has registered of late several violent anti-Semitic attacks that have shaken its Jewish community. In Great Britain, the Jewish population has suffered a clear erosion in personal security over the past two years. Increasingly more British Jews are considering, for the first time, making Aliyah. In fact, the number of olim from England has nearly doubled.

Violence is not the only issue. Lighting Chanukah candles in one's home window has become a hot topic in many places, as has the wearing of yarmulkes. Children wearing clearly Jewish garb on their way to school and Kosher slaughter are often problematic. In general, many Jews around the world are experiencing a shake-up of their sense of identity.

Israel and the Aliyah Question

Where does Israel fit into all this? Some Israelis have long felt that anti-Semitism abroad is a "Diaspora problem," and that Aliyah is a personal choice of the Jews involved. This is a fundamental error. Anti-Semitism and Aliyah are two sides of the same coin. When communal security is shaken, some members react by strengthening their local Jewish institutions and identity, some choose to make Aliyah, and some react, most painfully, by hiding their Jewishness.

It appears that Israel has three roles to play in this crisis. First: defense of Jewish life abroad. Israel has advanced capabilities in the spheres of security intelligence and technology, and is actually an international defense-tech superpower. As such, it can and should be an active partner in protecting Jewish institutions around the world, in cooperation of course with the local governments.

Number two is community strength and resilience. Israel has developed over the past years and decades advanced models for coping with community-wide and individual trauma, as can be seen in the rehabilitation of communities in the western Negev following Oct. 7th. The knowledge and experience gained from the cooperation to this end between the State, local government, and civilian groups and individuals, can be used to serve Jewish communities around the world that have been hit hard by anti-Semitism.

Third, and arguably most importantly, is Aliyah. Israel is far from a beginner in this area. A deep, professional and well-coordinated infrastructure has been built in recent years here to encourage and absorb immigration, led by the Ministry of Aliyah in close partnership with the Jewish Agency and World Zionist Organization. These bodies work efficiently to enhance absorption, employment, housing, and community support for Olim. These ongoing efforts must be redoubled through genuine dialogue with Diaspora communal leaders and local Aliyah-promotion organizations.

Our Common Destiny

The heart of the matter is the sense, both in Israel and abroad, of the common Jewish destiny we all share. There is no longer a substantial difference between what happens in Jerusalem or in Sydney, London, Amsterdam, and New York. Decisions that are made in Israel, whether they concern defense, economics, and even Jewish values, echo directly upon the daily lives of Jews the world over. And by the same measure, the sense of fear in the Diaspora is translated here in Israel into life choices: strengthening of identity, Aliyah, or deep dread of the future.

The expanse between Aliyah and Jewish communal strength does not comprise two different subjects; it is rather one consecutive continuum, in which is tested the State of Israel's ability to be not only a sovereign state, but also the general and ultimate home for every Jew around the world. 

It's Not the Economy, Stupid!

by Professor Asher Cohen, Department of Political Studies, Bar Ilan University, (written for the religious zionist periodical - Matzav Haruach) translated by Hillel Fendel. 

The key slogan in Bill Clinton’s US Presidential election campaign more than 30 years ago – “It's the economy, stupid!” – is considered even now one of the most successful lines in the history of political propaganda. 

Clinton’s advisors understood that the vast majority of Americans are interested, more than anything else, in economic issues, and especially as they relate to their own individual financial situations. This insight was one of the factors that led to his victory. In terms of American domestic issues, this is certainly logical and understandable.

But it is totally irrelevant to the Middle East, and the problem is that President Donald Trump has adopted the same spirit as part of his dream to reorganize and reorder the world. He is waging his great struggle for a new world order against China, and more broadly against the China-Russia axis and their partners around the world. One might be tempted to view this as a battle of ideologies, between the world’s leading democracy against two non-democratic powers – but this is far from the case. 

Trump's objective is not ideology as much as it to simply stop the Chinese. He is willing to forge political partnerships with regimes very far from being democratic on the basis of national interests alone. All he demands is that they be willing to help him block the Chinese; the question of national identity and ideology is far less important to him. Even states that are willing to join his alliances against the Chinese even as they support terrorism are most welcome.

Trump, with his business and deal-making experience and background, believes that almost any challenge in international relations can be solved through various economic incentives. Many in Israel have been of this mindset in the past, and some remain there to this day. The “New Middle East” envisioned by Shimon Peres rested entirely on the hope for a dramatic improvement in the Palestinians’ economic lives, which he hoped and expected would lead them to choose peace and compromise over their hatred for Israel. 

Remnants of this approach continued for years afterwards, up to this day, under a basic assumption that economic improvement for PA residents - more work entry permits, a flow of funds into Gaza, etc. - would lead to security calm. 

Israel understood too late, after paying the terrible and painful price of the Oct. 7th massacre, that the issue of ethnic identity is much more central to our Arab enemies than financial interests. People with an economic-business outlook, such as Pres. Trump and Israeli adherents of the Peres approach, are astonished to discover that even after the destruction of most of the Gaza Strip, the overwhelming majority of Gazans say that Oct. 7th was a positive event. Hamas continues even now to recruit more and more young people for the sacred goal of destroying Israel.

This can be seen in Lebanon as well. Even after the heavy blows it has suffered, Hizbullah does not give up for a moment what it describes as “the resistance.” Its members seek not to rebuild the villages of southern Lebanon, but to renew the terrorist infrastructures.

No improvement in their standard of living will get Hamas, and an overwhelming majority of all PA residents, to give up their basic identity – centered around their dream of destroying Israel. Arab-Palestinian identity in its essence is rooted in their hatred of Zionism and Zionists. To expect that they would abandon their goal of annihilating Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is tantamount to demanding that they cease to be "Palestinians."

There is no Arab organization in the PA parallel to “Peace Now.” Periods of apparent calm are merely fillers as they wait for conditions to enable them to resume their fight-to-the-death against Israel. 

In Israel, there is a growing understanding that even countries that appear to be potential partners with the US in bringing "peace" to Gaza – Turkey and Qatar foremost among them – have never abandoned their fundamental conceptions. They view Gaza as a permanent focal point of violence and hatred against Israel, one that will seek to challenge, harass and weaken Israel at every turn until it realizes its dream of destroying the Jewish state. 

Even as the Americans seem to approach Gaza with an "art of the deal" outlook, Israel must stand its guard and be careful not to repeat the same mistake. Israel must oppose this American mindset in every possible way.