Can I tell you a story? It’s a little long so please be patient because it’s also inspiring.

I had a recent interview where the host wanted to talk about all the kinds of projects that the Genesis 123 Foundation funds. That’s the nonprofit I established in 2017 with a unique and important mission. Yes, we have funded a wide range of projects to be a tangible blessing to Israelis of all backgrounds, and more: projects for at-risk youth, soldiers, widows and orphans, persecuted Christians, unborn babies, and more. Our Israel Emergency Campaign has been robust and widely impactful. But to be honest, as much as it’s important to fund projects that are tangible and meaningful, our programs are meant to be relational.

Another area that’s been important and that we have funded from the outset is to support new immigrants. It’s not just tangible, meaningful, and relational — it’s also prophetic. The ingathering of the exiles is not just a bumper sticker. It’s taking place before our eyes. I am part of that.

In July I held a community briefing in Nashville, sharing personal updates from Israel and talking about why I do what I do building bridges between Jews and Christians. But anytime I speak, I always prioritize Q&A. That’s the most important: not to tell people what I think is important (and it is), but to answer questions about what they think is important.

One woman asked about being an immigrant, she herself an immigrant. Though it’s been more than 22 years, in many ways I often feel as if I am just off the boat.

Thinking back, I still remember many challenges and traumas, but these are far outweighed by the blessings. Over the years, my children have thanked us for making the move. I also have the privilege of living out prophecy in many ways: seeing my children and grandchildren playing in the streets, in Hebrew, and as I grow older myself not as an observer but as a poster child.

Last Thursday I drove my daughter back to her apartment. They had borrowed our car and I took her home. When we arrived, I saw something that triggered some of the challenges, but allowed me to step in to help new immigrants as the veteran immigrant.

It was 10:30 pm. We arrived at her building to see a big black van blocking the parking lot. As we approached, the van pulled out. Taking up a full parking spot were more than a dozen suitcases and duffle bags, two car seats, two strollers, and more. A family of five, new immigrants from New York, had literally just arrived. They had landed four hours earlier, and now stood in an apartment they had never seen: their new home. Their first home in Israel.

Of their three beautiful little girls, one was happy and excited to be in their new home. One was shell shocked and probably too young to remember any of it. The third was over tired and having a meltdown. Kids do that. It’s normal. I empathized and remembered our arrival on August 4, 2004 with five children.

I helped move in their luggage as my daughter heated up the meal she had made for them. When new immigrants arrive, it’s not just a change in residence. The community steps up to help them.

I asked them to be in touch if I could help. Did they need groceries or anything else? Initially, I just thought I was being nice, doing the right thing to help a family of new immigrants as others had helped us. As it was Thursday, with Shabbat beginning Friday night, the one thing they asked for was cleaning supplies so they could start off with their first Shabbat in their first home in Israel, amid folding tables, borrowed mattresses, plastic chairs, and unpacked luggage, clean.

I realized that my instinct to help was right, but that I shouldn’t just do this as a private enterprise. I made an executive decision that the Genesis 123 Foundation would provide the new family what they needed: their first broom, mop, bucket, dustpan, floor and window cleaner, cleaning rags, and more. A bottle of wine for the parents and gluten free ice pops for the kids.

I also bought some treats for the kids because it’s true that a parent is only as happy as his or her least happy child. I wanted all the donors to the Genesis 123 Foundation to have a share in the smooth and clean absorption of this one family.

The next morning, I went out and bought them everything they needed. 455 shekels worth. It’s a token amount. But when I told them that it was a donation from the Genesis 123 Foundation, from Christians who love and support Israel all over the world, they were touched and grateful. As I said at the outset, the objective is to be relational. They know our Christian friends and donors all over the world helped make this possible.

When they clean the house for Shabbat every week, or when they clean up a spill, each of our donors will have a share in that.

By the time the new family arrived, meals were being prepared for a week, help was offered with their kids starting new schools in Hebrew, furniture was borrowed, and more. The front door to their apartment was decorated with signs from their new neighbors welcoming them. We lent a hand as well.

My kids thank us for making the decision to move to Israel when they were young. My daughter added a thought to this: it allowed them to be in Israel without having to deal with such things as new immigrants themselves. My son-in-law brought the plastic chairs they needed. Always curious about our decision to come to Israel (and bring his future wife when she was 11), for the first time he got to witness the immediate experiences of a family that made the same decision.

I suspect that for most of my kids, after 22 years, they don’t remember most of the challenges. There were plenty. Today, they’re just living the life in Israel, raising their own children. Even with all the challenges we still have, they thank us.

As I left on Thursday night, I counseled the parents and gave them a blessing:

In 20 years, when their children are grown up, all the bumps and stresses of these first days and weeks will be a distant memory, and their kids will thank them for making the decision as well.

This continued support allows the Genesis 123 Foundation to continue to do small, meaningful, spontaneous, and relational things like this, along with the wide range of other Genesis 123 funded projects. I don’t typically write an article like this with an agenda other than to share information. But in this case, I do want to appeal to you to join us so we can continue to do things just like this. If you’re not in Israel, please come visit to see and participate for yourself.

Full disclosure 2: I am a “settler,” the pejorative term used to describe (or defame) Israelis who live in Jewish communities over the Green Line, the 1949 armistice between Israel and Jordan (there was no Palestine then), which Jordan occupied and annexed, and then over which Israel restored control in the 1967 Six Day War. You may have heard the term Judea and Samaria or, also pejoratively the “West Bank.” That’s where I live. There are some 500,000 of us. Our presence here is not foreign colonialism or illegal. That’s for a separate conversation.

The thing I want you to know is that while we are all “settlers” and branded together as a group, we are not all alike by any means.

This week, another “settler” and member of Israel’s Knesset, Zvi Sukkot, catapulted himself into global headlines by destroying a monument dedicated to local terrorist “martyrs” in a Palestinian Arab village, Madama. More on that shortly. But let me say uncategorically: Sukkot does not represent me, not in my way of thinking, behavior, and not in the Knesset.

He does not represent most of the 500,000 Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, not before the last election and certainly not now.

The provocative title here is meant to depict two parallel and contradictory realities. When right-wing violence erupts in Israel during a political campaign, it can become a kind of “settler porn” because it plays to the base instincts of a demographic that is excited by such behavior. We are in the midst of a political campaign and rather than appealing to voters outside his base, he appealed to his voters’ base (or debased) instincts.

The second kind of “settler porn” is the use of images and stories that allow outsiders to consume the most provocative, lurid, violent version of “settlers” as if it represents all of us, all Israel’s religious-nationalist community, or all of Israel. The danger is twofold: violence is rightly condemned, but sensationalizing it reinforces stereotypes, brushes over complex realities, and turns an individual action by a nutjob of a politician into voyeuristic anti-Israel spectacle.

People outside Israel may have seen the headline or 60 second news or social media clip about this but need to know the realities. First, Israelis are having a deep conversation about this, across political boundaries, throughout the media, and over the water cooler.

Domestically, I hope this will contribute in a constructive way. I also hope that it will contribute to considering who to vote for, or who not to vote for, in the coming election just two months away.

At the same time, Israel’s detractors are using this as “proof” of repeated tropes and allegations of Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid, none of which are true. I hope they will read this and realize most Israelis condemn Sukkot’s behavior for a variety of reasons, and that while proper to condemn specific actions and individuals, it is not proper to use this to define all of us in broad strokes, or make up claims using words whose meaning has been so watered down as to become meaningless. This is neither accurate, honest, nor constructive.

That most Israelis condemn this behavior and would never even think of doing something like this makes this case all the more glaring. It’s a one off, a perversion, not the norm and not accepted. This is the reality.

Even if there were tens or hundreds of people who would actually do this, the problem is that there are so many such monuments, public parks, schools, etc. celebrating the terrorists and inciting violence that it would literally be a never-ending battle. But the reality is that we don’t do it. And the fact that there are hundreds of such locations celebrating and inciting terror is not the reason we don’t.

The reasons we don’t do it are because it’s stupid, dangerous, not our place nationally, and certainly not our place personally to do so. Not any individual and not an elected official. It’s counterproductive for a host of reasons. Because it’s lawless, because it is not how we should behave, because it ties up military resources to enable it, because it’s terrible publicity, and because nothing in doing so changes the terror culture the PA embraces, glorifies, and celebrates. If anything, it makes that culture more strident.

That’s the story: the reality of who our neighbors are and the fact that they glorify, celebrate, and incite violence and terror. That is the story that is lost here. It’s not a culture or theology that can be changed or rationalized with.

The names and crimes of the terrorists whose names were on the Madama “Martyrs Monument” should be the story. Three examples of the home-grown celebrated terrorists are: Yaman Tayeb Ali Faraj and Shadi Nassar, both affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Hamdan Hussein Mahmoud al-Najjar. Collectively, they are responsible for or perpetrated terror attacks against Israel that left several dead and dozens wounded. Other Madama “martyrs” were killed in the 1968 Battle of Karameh, where PLO/Fatah terrorists fought alongside Jordanian troops in a battle that left scores of Palestinian Arab terrorists and Jordanian troops dead.

Yes, the terrorists glorified and the acts they committed are vile. Sukkot claimed he acted after the IDF did not remove the monuments despite his demands to do so, arguing they glorified murderers of Jews and would inspire future terrorism among local children. Maybe that’s true. But he had no right or authority to take private action, and certainly not under IDF escort. Israel is a robust democracy. Sukkot and his party could have demanded the monument’s removal in the Knesset, through the IDF, or via the courts.

The IDF said the visit was coordinated as a “tour of monuments” but that the destruction was done deceptively.

Because Sukkot’s actions were so debased, the incident drew proper, immediate, and widespread condemnation including from Prime Minister Netanyahu calling it “unacceptable,” from within his own Religious Zionist Party, as well of course from the opposition. One fellow Religious Zionist Party Knesset member, Ohad Tal, questioned whether this was somehow a campaign event:

“I want to understand. Was this move coordinated with the campaign? Is there some deep strategy behind it that I am completely missing, or have we simply decided to commit political suicide once and for all? I’m genuinely asking.”

There are other problems with not just what happened but how it went down. The army should not have allowed it to begin with. Once it was clear what was happening, it should have been stopped. Whoever approved it should be fired. Allowing a military escort took soldiers away from the actual mission of the IDF, which is defense. This was only an offensive operation. It put Israelis in danger.

What if terrorists in Madama had opened fire, wounding or killing Sukkot and his entourage, or the soldiers protecting him? For what? By doing this and taking troops to provide the security needed, did he make anyone truly safer, or did he just put everyone at even greater risk?

Sukkot should be removed from the party but that probably won’t happen. Even though party leader Betzalel Smotrich disagreed with the actions and chided Sukkot, he will probably not have the nerve to shake his party’s base of support and risk losing votes even over a principled stand. However, as head of the Religious Zionist party, Smotrich should realize that what happened was not only not religious, but a hilul hashem, a public desecration of God’s name.

Not only was Sukkot’s action not religious, but it was also not Zionist. The restoration of Jewish sovereignty for Jews to live as an independent nation in our ancestral land, is not to sanction lawless behavior against others.

There are very good reasons for Israel to oppose the existence of monuments and other public spaces celebrating terrorists and inciting terror. The PA school across from my home has a mural of PLO terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. That’s child abuse. Rather than going in to destroy the monument, why did Sukkot not go in and make a video to go viral, about who the terrorists were on the monument and make the case for its removal? Why don’t people come to my balcony to see the sick message Palestinian Arab children are taught by celebrating Arafat in any way.

The PR damage and other mistakes that were done are irreversible, but that’s not the reason why it was bad. It was bad because it is wrong.

With Israel’s national elections two months away, pollsters, reporters, and pundits typically talk about the two main “blocks” of parties that are likely to make up the next coalition according to projections from regular polls. The polls vary slightly, but show an overall similar trend.

The first block is that of the current government with five political parties including the long-time dominant Likud party under Benjamin Netanyahu, the “Bibi block,” including two nationalist religious parties and two ultra-Orthodox religious parties. Many refer to this as the classical example of a “natural coalition” because it’s easier to bring together people and parties that are like minded, have common interests, or at least have not spent an entire campaign (and the term of the outgoing government) making public declarations and fighting against one another.

The second block is referred to as the “change” block which is made up of most or all of the several parties that are currently in the opposition, as well as new parties that have emerged in the last several weeks, each seeking to be part of a government that will either discard all the parties of the existing government, or at least provide enough alternatives to form a coalition that will not be identical to the current government.

The variable in this are the three Arab parties that are long-time members of the Knesset. Yes, for those that think Israel is an apartheid state allow me to debunk that notion as Arab parties typically account for 10-15 seats in the parliament, plus or minus 10 percent of the total. With the exception of the previous government where the Arab Islamist party, Ra’am, joined the coalition, typically these parties become a third block of votes as neither they want to support, nor have most previous governments wanted to include specifically non-Zionist Arab parties. That glass ceiling was broken last time and technically anything could happen this time despite polarizing declarations being made. But even if not formally part of the government, the Arab parties could find themselves “supporting” the government from “outside” in a parallel set of coalition negotiations.

But what if the “natural coalition” is not the ones that represent the two main blocks but a hybrid of these? What if the statement that the formation of a government of one or the other blocks is “what the voters wanted” is a farce, and what the voters truly want is a coalition that straddles the center and right of the spectrum (as there is virtually no party that is firmly in the left of the spectrum except one, the Democrats — no relation to US politics)?

In order to form a government, a coalition needs at least 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats. Getting to 61 can be done through the traditional “natural coalitions” but it can also be done by mixing and matching other parties. Following any election there are different ways to get to 61 plus. Some are improbable but some might surprise us.

What would have happened differently if, following the previous national election, Netanyahu went for a coalition that comprised other centrist and right-wing parties, not the reflexive “natural” coalition that he has now? What if after winning enough votes and being given the mandate to form the government, he made four phone calls to political rivals including former Prime Ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid of the same political party, to Avigdor Lieberman his once protégé and now adversary, and to Benny Gantz the former Chief of Staff who previously entered a coalition with Netanyahu during COVID to find himself cut out of the Prime Ministerial rotation agreement they had made to form the government to begin with?

What if Netanyahu offered these leaders and their parties’ seats at the table, to govern without relative polarizing extremists on either side? If they had said yes, the government would have been very different and probably something most Israelis could get behind. If they said no, Netanyahu would have looked like a statesman rather than a divisive figure, even if he ended up creating the same coalition as he has now and which so many Israelis want to see gone.

Especially after the October 7 Hamas attack and massacre.

If polls today are accurate, Gadi Eisenkot, another former Chief of Staff and former partner with colleague Benny Gantz’s party, and his new Yashar party will win the popular vote and be given the mandate to form a government. If that happens, and the same polls show that he will still have trouble getting to the minimum 61 seats to form a majority government based on projections for the current opposition parties, what if his first call were to Netanyahu to talk about a coalition government with him and Likud, with parties that are currently part of the opposition, and 1-2 of the new parties that might pass the electoral threshold of 3.25% of the votes to even count?

Albeit that part of the opposition or “change” block is also known as the anti-Bibi block, what if Eisenkot were to offer Netanyahu the position of Foreign Minister, or Finance Minister (at which he excelled in the early 2000s under Ariel Sharon’s government)?

Would Netanyahu accept, or attempt to force Eisenkot into a coalition that relied on Arab parties’ support so, from day one, he could be critical of that? If he were to reject such an offer, are there enough people in Likud who would break away and form a faction of one third of Likud’s 21-23 seats (based on current polls) and join an Eisenkot government, leaving Netanyahu and his close Likud allies a shell of what it was, and not even necessarily the main opposition party?

Would Eisenkot leap out of the gate with the impression of being a unifying statesman in a broad center-right government that mathematically is no less “natural” than a Bibi-block vs a change block? Would Israelis who are just really driven to see Netanyahu be retired celebrate such a shake-up even if it meant leaving Netanyahu in power at all?

There are many ways to get to 61 seats to form a government. After years of widespread divisiveness between political parties, three years since the October 7 Hamas attack and massacre, and the ensuing war which has not ended, many Israelis are looking for a change. The vote may reflect that, but how any political party and its leadership choose to get to at least 61 seats may be even more important than the vote itself.

Join the conversation September 16 at 1:00pm Eastern time with a panel of undecided Israeli voters to evaluate these and other factors that Israelis will consider on election day. Advance registration is required.

We’re almost halfway through the Biblical month of Elul during which Jewish communities around the world enter a sacred season of prayerful reflection. Elul is the time of cheshbon nefesh, the mother of all soul searching, an honest accounting before God. It is a season of repentance, of examining motives in our own hearts. Closely connected to repentance is forgiveness, and for both of which at this season there is a systematic approach.

Just as some couples might mark a significant anniversary with a renewal of their wedding vows, we turn to God annually to renew our commitment to Him with deep sincerity and actions. Part of that reverence for God is also a commitment to repair relations between people. We cannot revere Him, and be thoughtless or insensitive to one another with impunity. During Elul, the shofar is sounded each morning as a vivid wake-up call, reminding us to awaken and prepare for the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah, the New Year, and Yom Kippur, the Day of Repentance.

I wish you could hear the shofar outside my window each morning, from nearby synagogues and the balconies of people’s homes. It’s spiritually stirring and essential. Every day. It’s like a snooze button on an alarm clock that you can’t turn off, and shouldn’t want to.

This ancient rhythm of introspection and repentance speaks powerfully to us in many ways. Scripture calls us to examine ourselves, to repent, and to realign our lives with the purposes of God. In this season, we dig deep about not only what needs repair in our private lives, but also what faithfulness looks like toward one another personally, and toward God.

And yes, we can and should renew that at least annually. Through prayer, introspection, and action.

The interrelated theme of forgiveness also is actively present as we make a proactive commitment as part of the soul searching to assess who we might have harmed over the previous year, apologize, and seek their forgiveness. I am approached by Christian friends frequently to understand Jewish concepts. Recently forgiveness has been one of the more common themes. Forgiveness is a unique concept in Judaism and Christianity, yet Jews and Christians approach forgiveness differently. In Judaism, especially at this season, the obligation is to do a soul searching and ask for forgiveness. There’s a general notion that forgiveness is not to be dispensed like a product from a vending machine, but actively sought out with sincerity.

Three years ago, a rabbi friend shared with me words that have stayed with me since:

“To ask for forgiveness involves a bit of embarrassment, a humbling of one’s ego, a recognition of the frailty of the human condition; so it pains us, but we do it, eventually. But this experience pales in comparison to the final level of forgiveness, bestowing it! Asking for forgiveness involves one set of character traits, using one’s ‘humility muscles’; giving forgiveness on the other hand involves a whole other area of human nature — compassion, love, and respect.”

More succinctly, the simple truism “To err is human; to forgive, divine” is the rudder for this process this season. When there is a sincere plea for forgiveness, our response can be divine in nature, or it can be very human. It’s up to us.

Both traditions offer profound teachings on mercy, repentance, and reconciliation rooted in Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels, and centuries of interpretation. But many questions, nuances, and differences exist. How do Jewish concepts like teshuvah and divine pardon relate to Christian ideas of grace and atonement? How do we approach forgiveness from our respective traditions on an individual basis, and in relation to God? Where do the traditions converge, and where do they diverge in theology and in practice? As we enter the High Holiday season, on August 27 I will be hosting a deep, honest, and thoughtful conversation on the Inspiration from Zion webinar series doing a deep dive into Jewish and Christian perspectives on forgiveness. My friends Rev. Joe Green and Rabbi Jonathan Hausman will discuss topics relating to forgiveness from a Christian and Jewish perspective. Registration is free.

I look at this overall topic definitely from the perspective of creating understanding, but I also think these are the cornerstones of what make me a better Jew and human being. There are specific Jewish customs that make the idea of forgiveness universal which make the topic relevant to us all whether we are specifically mindful of these during this season, or anytime.

As an overall theme, ideas surrounding forgiveness come up a lot in my regular engagement with Christians. But this year there was one unsettling experience, a message I received from a Pastor I used to respect and with whom I had not been in touch for many years after he did something terrible to me, the ripple effect of which I still feel. Out of the blue he wrote:

“There is so much I need to share with you including a long overdue apology for horrible act of selfishness from many years ago I have never forgotten that cruel act that I have to confess to you and seek your forgiveness.”

Albeit without the details and context here, I will look forward to use this to illustrate the conversation, my response, and about which I will make myself vulnerable to open evaluation by Pastor Joe and Rabbi Jonathan who will represent their respective traditions. Was his appeal to me sincere? Should I have forgiven him? Given him a hearing? I’m interested in what the rabbi and pastor have to say.

Elul reminds us that repentance is not only about regret for past shortcomings. It is about choosing a better direction for the future. Both on a personal level and vis a vis God, forgiveness and repentance must be cornerstones of doing so. One might ask more than rhetorically what might appear to be a chicken and egg question of which comes first, or in this case which is the foundation for the other: can there be repentance without forgiveness or forgiveness without repentance.

None of us are perfect and I stand as personal testimony to that. If I am being honest, I need to acknowledge my shortcomings interpersonally and to and in relation to God. If I am being honest, I should dub myself King of the Imperfect because this season is about me and my behaviors, not about or judging others.

The alarm clock is sounding. Sounding the shofar each day is a good literal and figurative wake-up call for each of us. Let me give you one.

Whether in personal prayer and introspection, or part of an important interfaith dialogue to explore the parameters, if only once a year this is a good time to take personal accounting of one’s behaviors and even if we don’t come out of it perfect, at least not to make the same mistakes again in the coming year.

As Israel’s October 27 election approaches, a wave of new political parties has entered an already crowded field, reshaping how Israeli voters think about their choices, and complicating what was already going to be a difficult coalition-building exercise. Especially for undecided voters. A recent panel of undecided Israeli voters, discussed issues and impressions as part of the webinar series What Are We Thinking? spent much of their conversation dissecting these emerging parties, who is behind them, what they stand for, and whether any of them will actually pass the electoral threshold to survive long enough to matter or make an impact.

Several parties among dozens of small and new parties dominated the conversation, each doing its best to define itself uniquely from among the others, carve out a distinct constituency and the issues that matter to them.

Zionist Home (the Reservists Party), led by former Knesset members Yoaz Hendel and Chili Trooper, has generated significant interest and enthusiasm among center and center-right voters. Hendel’s record of active reserve duty since October 7 and his vocal advocacy for reservist rights gives the party an authenticity that resonated strongly with panelists.

“He was actually walking the walk,” said one participant.

Trooper was described as one of the most trustworthy figures in Israeli politics, someone you would want as a friend, not just a politician. The party’s platform centers on the ultra-Orthodox draft and national service equity, two of the most polarizing domestic issues in Israel today.

The Unity Party, formed by Gilad Erdan and Yuli Edelstein, both longtime Likud stalwarts who have served in different ministerial capacities, represents a different kind of departure. The panelists viewed it with a mixture of respect and pragmatic skepticism. Erdan’s extended tenure as Israel’s UN ambassador left him politically disconnected from his Likud party base, and the feeling among participants was that neither he nor Edelstein was likely to sustain an independent party through election day. The more likely scenario, many agreed, is that they will use their party as leverage to secure favorable positions within a larger bloc, either Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid’s Beyachad or Gadi Eisenkott’s Yashar parties, the two main opposition parties leading in the polls, as the most probable destinations.

Sharon Haskell’s Israel First Party is currently a solo initiative by a politician who has already moved from Likud to Gideon Sa’ar’s New Hope and back out again. She, too, has served in multiple government roles, most recently deputy Foreign Minister before resigning to start her own party. This was viewed with similar skepticism. With no announced running mates and a short political runway, her party was seen more as a placeholder than a serious independent force.

A potential new Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) party, not yet officially registered at the time of the conversation, generated the most intriguing discussion. Presumably led by Moti Leittner and Eli Yishai, a former Shas leader widely remembered as a capable and principled figure who was pushed out when current Shas head Aryeh Deri returned from prison, the party would target ultra-Orthodox voters willing to break with their rabbinical leadership on the question of army service and, ultimately, what’s good for their community. The participants acknowledged the enormous social pressure that makes such defection difficult, that ultra-Orthodox voters largely follow their rabbis’ instructions. But they saw the party as a potentially significant disruptor, one that even some non-Haredi voters said they might support if polling suggested it could clear the 3.25% threshold required for Knesset entry.

As one panelist noted, the rabbinic leadership may tell their community to vote one way, but are not present in the polling places with them.

Einat Wilf’s Oz Party was flagged for its “draft for all” platform, proposing mandatory military or civilian national service for every Israeli, regardless of religious affiliation, ethnicity, or background. Her website’s four-language interface (Hebrew, English, Arabic, and Russian) signaled a genuine attempt at broad appeal. Participants found her smart and compelling, though they noted her party still lacked visibility and a full candidate list to make it widely appealing. Practically, it is largely not even mentioned in the polls where the above parties at least have the traction of being identified as possibly passing the threshold, or not.

The proliferation of small parties creates a serious arithmetic headache in forming a government coalition. If three or four new center to center-right parties each pull in enough support for two Knesset seats but fall short of the 3.25% threshold, those votes are simply discarded. The panel estimated this could waste six to eight potential seats, a significant number in a body where 61 seats is the majority. The damage would fall disproportionately on the center-right, since nearly all of these new parties are drawing from that space.

Some panelists noted that most of the new parties would ultimately need to merge, form technical blocs, or negotiate their way onto lists of the established parties before election day. The deadline for such arrangements, roughly three weeks before the vote, will likely produce a wave of late consolidation.

The deeper political question hovering over all of it is Prime Minister Netanyahu. Many of these new parties exist because Likud under Netanyahu has blocked what was called “an entire generation of capable politicians from advancing” as his successor within Likud. Not only have many of those who have established new parties, Erdan, Edelstein, and Haskell specifically, been sidelined within Likud, but the more established parties and many of their leaders including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Yisrael Beiteinu party head Avigdor Lieberman all left Likud partly because the path forward was closed and/or over differences with Netanyahu that prevented their advancement.

“A whole generation is not being given a chance to serve at the top.”

Whether the resulting fragmentation helps or hurts the prospects of unseating the current government and forming a new government depends entirely on whether these fragments can assemble into something coherent before the deadline and the ballots are printed.

The panel ended without consensus on an outcome but with a shared sense that this election’s defining drama will not be the campaign itself, but the coalition negotiations that follow.

Hear the whole panel conversation on YouTube here or on the Inspiration from Zion podcast. Register here to be part of the next “What Are We Thinking” on September 16.

Where I live in the Judean mountains, Jewish Israeli communities exist alongside Palestinian Arab communities. Visually in some places, we coexist so close to one another it’s as if clutching your own hands together as your fingers would be intertwined between one another.

Driving where I live in the Judean mountains, and in Judea of Judea and Samaria, it’s common to see red signs in Hebrew, Arabic, and English, warning Israelis that it is both illegal and unsafe for them to enter areas under the full control of the Palestinian Authority. These signs are often used to contradict the allegation by Israel’s detractors that Israel is an apartheid state. It is not. That’s a topic for another conversation. However, these signs also do not specifically or directly contradict that trope.

Let me tell you why, what the signs say, and why it is important.

First of all, it’s important to note that the signs clearly state it is illegal according to Israeli law for Israeli citizens to go into the Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled areas. This applies both to Jewish and Arab Israelis equally. The reason it is illegal is because it’s unsafe. There are numerous accounts of Israelis defying this in order to shop for products or get services such as dentistry or car repairs substantially cheaper in the PA than they would in Israeli Jewish communities.

The reality that it is possible for millions of Israelis to be within a short drive of cities in which millions of Palestinian Arabs inhabit emphasizes a geographic reality of why the Palestinian Arab controlled areas risk being a danger to Israel. If someone can drive to these PA areas from Israeli cities and towns so easily, the converse is true as well. Until Israel began placing physical barriers to prevent the free passing of non-Israeli Palestinian Arabs, it was commonplace and easy for terrorists to penetrate Israeli communities and carry out obscene carnage. Thousands of Israeli victims are sad testimony to this reality.

While it’s more common for Arab Israelis to frequent PA controlled areas, the reality is that Islamic extremists are rarely less kind to any Israeli, regardless of ethnicity or religion. This was proven with the Hamas attack, massacre and kidnapping on October 7, 2023, when Muslim Israeli Arabs were also kidnapped and killed. As long as they drive in with a yellow Israeli license plate, they are at risk.

From time to time, it is also still the case that sometimes Israelis miss the literal warning signs and accidentally enter one of these PA controlled areas. In the past few decades, there have been notable instances of Israeli cars or people being attacked, threatened, or worse. There was the gruesome incident in October 2000 where two reservist soldiers made a wrong turn, and were lynched and mutilated as Palestinian Arab crowds cheered as their blood literally poured from their bodies and the murderers displayed their bloody red hands celebrating the murders.

You don’t realize how easy it is to make a wrong turn until you make that wrong turn yourself. I have done it and it is indeed quite harrowing.

So, while the signs do not indicate anything about apartheid in Israel, the opposite of what the signs say is a pretty good indication that apartheid does not exist. Even, or perhaps specifically, because of where I live, it remains common to see Palestinian Arabs working and shopping within Israeli communities and businesses. Yes, there are security protocols to make sure Arab workers in my neighborhood do not come in armed with weapons to carry out a terror attack. You would want and indeed expect that where you live too. It’s never good or healthy for the plumber, electrician, or contractor to come into any community armed and threatening that very community. But there are no signs prohibiting them from doing so or, for that matter, any indication for them that it is either illegal or unsafe, according to anyone’s law.

Come visit and I will show you how daily interaction along the roads, in the grocery stores, construction sites, and in small businesses, both Jewish and Arab owned, contradict the allegations of an apartheid.

Whereas it’s common for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs to work and shop in Israeli businesses and communities, doing so is not only not unsafe for them, they are largely treated with respect and dignity. Workers are well paid in good conditions. Consumers get good value for their shekel, whatever the product or service.

I have often wondered what those red signs say to the Palestinian Arabs who drive by on their way home from Israeli communities. When they read Arabic warnings that it is illegal and unsafe for Israelis to enter their communities, are they ashamed? Do they feel that they have somehow vanquished Israel from these areas and are successful in their goal to eliminate a Jewish presence in the entire land of Israel? Do they even notice or care about the imbalance of the fact that someone may be coming from work or shopping in an Israeli community or business in safety, and pass a sign that warns Israelis not to follow them?

The red signs also point to the legal and diplomatic reality that exists on the ground since the 1993 Oslo Accords, for more than 30 years. With the advent of the Palestinian Authority, both Israel and the PA agreed to an administrative arrangement in Judea and Samaria, dividing the area into three administrative areas. Area A is the portion under PA control, and to which it is illegal and dangerous for Israelis to travel. Area A represents the vast majority of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria or, pejoratively, the West Bank.

Area B is jointly administered under PA civil control, but Israeli security control. Area C is the portion that is fully administered by Israel, both civilian and security. That’s where I live. Unlike Area A where I am not allowed to go, that reality is not the case for Palestinian Arabs in Area C.

The significance of this is that barring any other diplomatic agreement, these are the terms by which both Israel and the PA have agreed to coexist for more than three decades. Therefore, when people falsely claim that my community and communities like it, or any Jewish presence in “the West Bank,” is illegal, the very fact that there is an Area A, B, and C with an Area A in which it is illegal for me to enter, disproves the very allegation of anything being illegal — because the PA in fact signed and sanctioned this geographic and demographic reality.

Three years ago, I hosted a group of black South Africans in search of a true understanding about the claims of apartheid, and all the other tropes against Israel were not true. They wanted to see for themselves. I showed them physically, geographically, historically, and with simple facts on the ground, that these were all lies. Come see for yourself. I’ll take you and show you in person. But I won’t take you into Area A.

On August 16, 1966, an Iraqi Air Force MiG-21 touched down at an Israeli air base after a daring flight across the Middle East. The pilot, Captain Munir Redfa, an Iraqi Assyrian Christian officer frustrated by discrimination against him and being ordered to bomb Kurdish civilians, defected under the careful orchestration of the Mossad, bringing with him the MiG-21. As a Christian suffering discrimination in Moslem Iraq, Radfa also expressed admiration for Israel, the “few against so many Moslems” for standing up to its Arab neighbors.

Redfa’s legacy as well as that of the boldness of the operation became the cornerstone for a shift in important geo-political alliances, military success, and have a lasting impact still today.

Code-named “Operation Diamond,” the three-year effort delivered the Soviet Union’s most advanced fighter plane intact into Western hands for the first time. What followed was not only a triumph for Israeli intelligence but a decisive act of intelligence sharing that gave the United States critical insight into the aircraft it was fighting over Vietnam, and which it would face for decades afterward.

By the mid-1960s the Soviet supplied MiG-21 had become the backbone of Arab air forces. Egypt, Syria, and Iraq fielded growing numbers of the fast, highly maneuverable plane. Israeli military leaders understood that air superiority would decide future wars, yet they lacked detailed knowledge of the plane’s abilities: its performance limits, radar capabilities, and combat weaknesses. Mossad chief Meir Amit made acquisition of a flyable MiG-21 a top priority. Earlier attempts in Egypt failed.

Eventually the Mossad identified Redfa, offered financial security, Israeli citizenship, and safe passage for his family, and arranged the carefully coordinated escape. Redfa took off on a training flight, diverted from his formation, and flew roughly 900 kilometers to Israel, escorted on the final leg by Israeli Mirage fighters. The aircraft was promptly redesignated “007” in a nod to James Bond.

Israeli test pilots and engineers immediately put the MiG through exhaustive evaluation. They flew it against their own Mirage IIIs, mapped its strengths and vulnerabilities, and translated the technical and tactical manuals that arrived with the plane. The knowledge paid rapid dividends. On April 7, 1967, Israeli pilots shot down six threatening Syrian MiG-21s without loss. Two months later, during the Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force destroyed the bulk of Egyptian and Syrian air power on the ground and in the air. Familiarity with the MiG-21’s performance, particularly its limitations at low altitude and its visibility challenges, contributed directly to that decisive margin of superiority.

Israel then shared its prize. In early 1968 the MiG was given to the United States and transported to a secret facility in Nevada. Under the program called “Have Doughnut,” American pilots and engineers subjected the aircraft to more than 100 flights. The MiG was flown against a variety of U.S. fighters including the F-4 Phantom, F-104, F-105, and others. Analysts discovered key exploitable flaws. Below 15,000 feet the MiG-21 could not reliably exceed roughly 0.98 Mach because of severe buffeting. Its engine response was sluggish, rear visibility poor, and gunsight limited under high-G conditions. These findings produced concrete tactical recommendations that would prove invaluable: force the engagement into the vertical, exploit energy bleed-off, and use the Phantom’s superior power and radar to control the fight at lower altitudes.

The timing could not have been more important. American aircraft were already engaged in intense combat over Vietnam, where MiG-21s flown by North Vietnamese pilots posed a serious threat to American aircraft. “Have Doughnut” data informed immediate adjustments in training and tactics. The insights helped shape the creation of the U.S. Navy’s Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as Top Gun, in 1969, and later the Air Force’s Red Flag exercises and the secret Constant Peg aggressor program that flew actual MiGs against American pilots through the 1980s. Dissimilar air combat training, once limited, became a cornerstone of U.S. readiness. Pilots who had never seen a real MiG-21 in the air suddenly trained against one, revealing how the enemy actually flew and fought.

The sharing of the MiG-21 and the intelligence that was derived from that also carried diplomatic weight. As a result of access to the MiG, the United States agreed to sell Israel the F-4 Phantom, an aircraft Washington had previously been reluctant to provide. That sale marked a turning point in the mutually beneficial strategic relationship between Israel and the United States. Israel gained a powerful US fighter that served for decades; America gained a proven partner willing to take extraordinary risks and then share the results with its ally. The pattern of intelligence cooperation that began with “Operation Diamond” continued for decades through other captured or defected Soviet systems and joint analysis of battlefield lessons, and continues still today.

“Operation Diamond” illustrated a deeper truth about the Israel-United States partnership. Israel’s geographic position and constant exposure to Soviet-supplied weapons then gave it unique opportunities to acquire and evaluate systems that the United States could study only at a distance. By transferring the MiG-21 and the knowledge derived from it, Israel accelerated American understanding of Soviet fighter technology at a time when that knowledge had direct combat relevance. The United States, in turn, supplied advanced platforms and political support that strengthened Israel’s qualitative military edge.

The adversaries have changed but sixty years later the legacy of that alliance and partnership born in “Operation Diamond” endures. The principles of realistic adversary training, detailed technical exploitation of captured equipment, and mutual trust in intelligence sharing remain central to both countries today. That’s been proven in numerous intelligence operations in the past decades, as well as the ongoing war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. “Operation Diamond” was more than a single dramatic defection and intelligence coup. It was a demonstration that intelligence cooperation between close allies can reshape the balance of power in the skies and influence the outcome of wars still to come.

While today, it may be taken for granted that Israel and the US and their respective military and intelligence agencies work closely together for one another’s mutual benefit, it cannot be understated that at the time of “Operation Diamond” and providing the Soviet MiG-21 to the US, Israel was still a new nation, less than two decades since declaring independence, and fighting every day for its survival.

The enemy has morphed but the threats remain the same. The legacy of “Operation Diamond” still plays an active part of the important relationship between the two countries. In the spirit of renaming the MiG to 007, its legacy underscores the adage of the name of another James Bond thriller, diamonds are forever.

Unfinished Business is a unique initiative to bring black Christian leaders for a groundbreaking trip to Israel, as a continuation of the work and vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who planned to bring 5,000 black leaders on a pilgrimage to Israel in 1967. That trip never happened because Dr. King was assassinated, but today that remarkable and consequential idea is being revived by Dr. Michael Stevens and Pastor Dumisani Washington. When asked “Why now?” there are a myriad of answers. The corresponding question is “Why has it not been done before now?” If one tries to imagine what would have been had Dr. King brought his group as planned, the impact would have been still felt today. Now, today, you can see that vision being realized nearly six decades later with an impact that will surely last generations.

Unfinished Business is being spearheaded by the Black Christian Leadership Council on Israel Relations, known as “The Council.” (www.BCLCIR.org) It is a contemporary and urgent program, with deep historical, spiritual, and compelling reasons why black American Christian leaders are stepping forward now to strengthen ties with Israel and the Jewish people.

Dr. King’s Unfulfilled Pilgrimage

At the heart of the project is the unfinished vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In 1967, King planned a mass pilgrimage to Israel of 5,000 black Americans scheduled for November of that year. Correspondence between King and Israeli leaders, including former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, shows mutual excitement. Ben-Gurion understood that this was more than a tourism event. He wrote that the trip would revive the biblical tradition of a religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which became reunited under Israeli sovereignty that year.

The Six-Day War not only reunited Jerusalem, but changed the political climate. Intense propaganda followed Israel’s victory, including early use of the “settler-colonial” charge against the Jewish state. King postponed the tour. The next year, on April 4, 1968, he was assassinated. The pilgrimage never occurred.

Dr. Stevens and Pastor Washington, co-founders of The Council, describe the new effort as completing that unfinished business. Rather than speaking for King, they seek to honor the direction he was clearly moving.

Had thousands of black Americans come on pilgrimage to Israel in the late 1960s, the relationship between black Christians and the Jewish state would look radically different today. Indeed, had 5,000 black leaders come to Israel then, they would have been welcomed with open arms in a country with no segregation, and the theological truths that were underscored could have undermined a great deal of the anti-Israel and antisemitic narrative that came after, and which corroded relations between black Americans and American Jews despite a long and strong history of mutual support.

Historic and Spiritual Connections

The bonds run far deeper than one planned trip. Pastor Washington notes that Israel’s oldest international relations trace back to the visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon in Jerusalem some 3,000 years ago. That ancient African-Israel connection finds modern expression in the strong support for Israel among many African Christians.

Africa holds the world’s largest Christian population. In places such as Nigeria, where Christians face severe persecution, and even in Iran, where the underground church is growing rapidly, many Christians remain deeply committed to Israel and the Jewish people. They pray for the peace of Jerusalem and see their faith rooted in the biblical story that begins with Israel. They also see their destiny tied to the biblical imperative to bless Israel.

Pastor Washington also emphasizes the biblical foundation of pilgrimage itself. Deuteronomy 16 instructs the Jewish people to appear before the Lord three times a year in the place God would choose: Jerusalem. The biblical feasts of Passover, Shavuot (Pentecost), and Sukkot (Tabernacles) established a pattern that later influenced Christian understanding of spiritual journey and return to the roots of their faith. For black American Christians, reclaiming this practice carries both historical and theological weight.

Both the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, and the ensuing rise in global hatred toward Israel and Jews in general have sharpened this awareness. The murder of Tanzanian agricultural students taken hostage by Hamas, and the broader treatment of black people in parts of the region, have prompted new conversations within black communities about who truly stands for justice and human dignity.

This is emphasized with the return of Jews from Ethiopia to Israel, underscoring a historical reality of the first time that black Africans were brought en masse from Africa to another country, not as slaves but fleeing persecution to freedom.

Why This Matters Now

The timing of Unfinished Business is not accidental. In the West, especially among younger Christians in the United States, support for Israel is under pressure from campus activism, disinformation campaigns, and ideological currents often linked to broader anti-Zionist and antisemitic narratives on social media and in common discourse. Pastor Washington notes this trend stands in contrast to the steadfast Zionism found among many African Christians who face real persecution yet continue to affirm the biblical people and Land of Israel.

The Black Christian Leadership Council on Israel Relations brings together senior black American leaders already active in Zionist advocacy, education, and travel to Israel. Their goal is the deliberate cultivation of the next generation of black Christian leaders who understand the biblical and historical case for standing with Israel.

The flagship Unfinished Business tour will bring 500 black Christian pastors and leaders to Israel this November. The scale deliberately echoes the magnitude of what King envisioned nearly six decades earlier. Participants will walk the Land, encounter its history, and return equipped to teach and lead within their communities.

A Strategic and Spiritual Moment

Pastor Washington understands that God is raising The Council’s voices at a critical time.

Unfinished Business is more than a tour or a new organization with a new vision. It is an effort to complete an interrupted chapter of history, to honor deep African and biblical connections to Israel, and to strengthen Christian solidarity with Israel at a time when that solidarity is under strain in the West. By doing so, black Christian leaders are positioning themselves to help shape a healthier future for relations between their communities, the Jewish people, and the State of Israel.

Visit www.BCLCIR.org for information and to register.

Follow the entire conversation with Pastor Washington on YouTube HERE and on the Inspiration from Zion podcast HERE.

In the old days, Arabs would just rant with wild rhetoric about destroying Israel outright and driving Israelis into the sea. They would threaten Israel openly, blockade shipping, eject UN “peacekeeping troops,” launch a variety of terrorist attacks, initiate global boycotts of Israel and the companies that do business with Israel. Today, while the chants of freeing “Palestine” “from the river to the sea” still mean driving Israel into the sea and eliminating the Jewish state, their tactics have changed from outright hostility and threats to something even more nefarious.

Israelis want peace. We get lulled and lured by the idea of peace. Even after the Hamas attack and massacre of October 7, 2023, even though the reality vis a vis our Arab neighbors is clear, we fantasize about peace and believe it is somehow achievable.

Recently Israeli intelligence reports were revealed and reported marking a shift in tactic but no less threatening to Israel’s existence. While the countries involved have not yet been named, what’s been revealed is that one or more Arab countries are being encouraged to make peace with Israel in order to normalize relations, as if being part of the Abraham Accords, but to use this to lure Israelis to think that peace is real and at the same time to build up their military preparedness to attack Israel.

This is a new tactic in the past 100 years of the broader “Arab-Israel Conflict” but it is indeed a tactic that is as old as Islam.

This week’s headlines could have come from headlines of the year 628 with Mohammed’s “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.” What happened then, 1,398 years ago, was that Mohammed signed a ten-year truce with the stronger Quraysh tribe at Hudaybiyyah. Many of Mohammed’s followers found this humiliating. However Mohammed had a bigger scheme planned. As the Quraysh tribe lived through the intoxication of their “peace in our time” belief, the pause in fighting through the treaty allowed Mohammed time to rearm and grow stronger. Two years later, he broke the treaty, marched on Mecca with a much larger force, and conquered it from the Quraysh tribe. Mecca was never the same, and Islam continued this path until today of using the model of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah to conquer other tribes, cultures, and countries.

What’s evident in this week’s headline is that as much as Israelis strive for peace agreements with our Arab and Moslem neighbors, and what’s been proven time and again throughout history, is that we cannot trust them, we cannot let our guard down, and we must maintain our military and intelligence capabilities because every treaty has the potential of being Hudaybiyyah.

Countless ceasefires with Hamas and Hezbollah were not made from positions of strength or genuine desire for peace and the well being of their own communities. They are made when one is too weak in order to regroup, rearm, and return to war when the time is right.

While Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan, we have never seen these become a warm peace. We have continued to see threats and military build up in public, and the frequent undermining and delegitimizing of Israel, as well as publicly bashing Israel in many forums. Since the Hamas massacre of October 7, rather than standing with Israel against the Islamists, these two nations at peace with Israel have only increased their rhetoric and threats.

Turkey, while not Arab, has become one of the biggest regional threats with its Islamist leader threatening to reconquer Jerusalem and his fantasies about reestablishing the Ottoman Caliphate, which was resoundingly defeated in WWI. Influence in Syria has increased, bringing the threat of a land attack, though they also seek American F-35s, closer than ever before. Turkey’s tactics are old-school: overtly threaten, delegitimize, and seek alliances and weapons upon which it can realize its threats.

In Lebanon, we see hopeful signs of some sort of agreement with our northern neighbor which has largely been plagued by war since 1975. Civil war among competing sectors of Lebanese society, the overt threat of Palestinian Arab terrorists, and the rise of and hijacking of most of the country by the Islamist Hezbollah continue to plague Lebanon. They should want peace and signing a piece of paper will be nice. But as long as Hezbollah remains dominant and a threat to Israel as well as Lebanon itself, Israelis will never truly be able to trust a peace agreement with them either.

Which Arab countries are involved in this attempt at a modern Treaty of Hudaybiyyah? I don’t know yet but have my guesses. In the bigger picture it almost doesn’t matter because it’s the simple reality of the threat of peace with any Arab or Islamic neighbor. In 1979 we were intoxicated by the idea of peace with Egypt and indeed there are many advantages of that. The same with making peace with Jordan in 1994, theoretically freeing up the risk of threats along our longest border. Some never trusted these from the outset and recent rhetoric and threats may prove them right.

The Abraham Accords brought normalization with Arab countries that were never in open conflict with Israel, and with which Israel does not share a border. These have been fruitful in just a few years. But just because we’re paranoid about the long term threats as a result of making peace does not mean we’re wrong about the potential for these threats. Time will tell.

Israelis fantasize about eating hummus in Damascus. From the early years of the state and especially after the Arabs’ resounding loss in the 1967 Six Day War, we believed that they would eventually come to understand that Israel is not going anywhere, and if it were a conflict about land, with the failed “land for peace” model, if we “gave back” land to the vanquished Arab states, they would become rational and make peace with us.

Qatar still threatens and brainwashes the world. And while no Arab state openly supports Hamas in the way Qatar does, the pattern is consistent: public gestures toward normalization paired with private cultivation of the forces that seek Israel’s destruction.

Every peace agreement must be viewed through the lens of Hudaybiyyah. Not with despair, but with clear eyes. Israel can and must pursue diplomatic relationships, but never at the cost of military readiness, intelligence vigilance, or the hard-won understanding that in this region, a signed agreement is not the end of the conflict. It may simply be the next phase of it.

In June, I attended a campaign event in Jerusalem featuring former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. As Israel’s October 27 national elections approach amid ongoing security challenges, political division, and economic pressures, the gathering highlighted the growing intensity of the race. Organized in English for the Anglo community, the well-structured evening included heavy security, and a looping TV interview with English subtitles showcasing Bennett speaking extemporaneously and engaging in thoughtful dialogue.

Bennett’s presentation was personable, interactive, and often spontaneous, especially during the lively Q&A session. Though he used a teleprompter to stay on message, his delivery felt authentic. As a native Hebrew speaker whose English carries the natural cadence of someone raised in a bilingual home, his fluency stood out, a notable asset in a campaign where competent English has itself become an issue. He diagnosed Israel’s core problems: internal fragmentation, economic burdens, security vulnerabilities, and educational disparities. While light on implementation details, his vision was clear, optimistic, and rooted in practical experience. It’s up to the voters to assess whether these issues are the primary issues, and if Bennett can deliver.

Bennett, who previously served as Minister of Education, Defense, and Israel’s 13th Prime Minister, is now leading the Beyachad party, an alliance with former Prime Minister and his former coalition partner Yair Lapid. This partnership recreates their earlier collaboration that achieved a surprise victory, while also qualifying them for state campaign funding. That’s no small thing where several or more other new parties are emerging and compete for votes but will not have state funding. Bennett’s remarks draw from his diverse background as a successful tech entrepreneur, IDF commander, and public servant to position himself as a pragmatic Zionist leader capable of delivering results.

He opened by sharing his personal family story. The son of American immigrants who arrived in Haifa shortly after the 1967 Six-Day War, Bennett described how his left-leaning, secular parents from San Francisco became deeply connected to Israel. Their decision to immigrate gave him the “best gift” of being born in Israel, serving in its army, building startups, raising a family, and eventually leading the nation. He used this narrative to underscore themes of unity, resilience, and potential.

Bennett framed the 2026 election as one of the most critical in Israel’s history, the third period of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Referencing the First and Second Temple periods, which ended due to internal hatred and division, he warned:

“This is it. We’re not going to have another chance.”

He rejected defeatist attitudes (”There’s nothing we can do about world opinion, the draft, prices, or crime”) as fundamentally un-Zionist.

“Zionism is about making the impossible possible.”

He called on this generation to unite and repair the country after years of war and dysfunction.

The audience responded with the loudest applause to his firm stance on ultra-Orthodox draft exemptions, and the need for a formal constitution. Israel currently relies on a collection of Basic Laws that function in that role. Bennett promised decisive action from day one. At the first government meeting after inauguration, he would establish a state commission of inquiry into the catastrophic failures of October 7.

“After such a colossal failure, the bereaved families and all the State of Israel deserve answers to ensure this will never happen again.”

He also pledged an eight-year term limit for prime ministers, citing biblical and historical examples like Gideon, George Washington, and Cincinnatus who voluntarily stepped away from power. “Am Yisrael, the People of Israel, is stronger than any one leader,” he stated, aiming to prevent personality cults and promote democratic renewal.

Ending the ultra-Orthodox draft exemption is a cornerstone of Bennett’s platform. He argued there is no historical Jewish precedent for large-scale Torah study replacing military duty or productive work. Abraham, Joshua, David, and great rabbis like Rashi all combined learning with engagement in the real world. Bennett proposed canceling benefits for draft evaders and redirecting billions of shekels to those who serve. Creative solutions include combined yeshiva-IDF programs. This would ease the unsustainable burden on many reservists struggling to build careers and families, and make national service equitable, encouraging massive new immigration.

Bennett called for dismantling Israel’s fragmented, tribal education system, where different communities operate parallel networks. His reform envisions one national public education framework with a mandatory 60% common core curriculum for every child: Hebrew, English, Math, Civics, Democracy, Zionism, and Tanakh (Bible) with appropriate adaptations for Arab students. The remaining 40% would allow communities flexibility for deeper religious studies, arts, technology, or other electives. State funding would be tied to teaching this shared foundation. Drawing on his success as Education Minister, where he doubled participation in advanced level math, Bennett vowed that every child whether “in Dimona, Jerusalem, or Kiryat Shmona” would gain the skills needed for 21st-century success.

“We can’t have a state within a state.”

Bennett noted high prices in Israel result from insufficient competition rather than geography or necessity. Citing past achievements, such as opening markets to reduce cheese prices by approximately 50%, and cutting murder rates by over 20% through focused law-and-order policies. He promised aggressive removal of thousands of non-tariff barriers, bureaucratic obstacles, and regulatory capture by special interests. He illustrated the problem with an arcane “soy drink” labeling rule that blocked imports to protect local monopolies. Future priorities include bold antitrust measures, and positioning Israel as a global leader in AI, targeting a top-three ranking worldwide as a strategic national asset.

“The next global race is AI. We need to be at the forefront.”

Additional priorities include urgent rebuilding of the North (Galilee), where many displaced residents have not returned, ensuring independent Israeli arms and ammunition production, maintaining zero tolerance for terrorism, and firmly rejecting a Palestinian state. Bennett stressed assembling a “dream team” of proven CEOs and effective managers rather than career politicians. Ministers would be expected to actually work, a “novel concept” that defined his previous government. He acknowledged ideological differences with Lapid, but emphasized their shared commitment to fixing Israel and restoring its status as “a light unto the nations.”

Bennett closed on a hopeful note rooted in Jewish history and his family’s journey. He urged attendees to become advocates.

“Four years from now, we will look back and say… back in 2026, we chose hope. Together, we wrote the next chapter of Israel.”

Whether Bennett and Beyachad prevail in October remains uncertain in Israel’s complex coalition-based system. Since June, they have slipped in the polls to a new party under the auspices of former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. Implementation of any ambitious agenda and the coalition building itself will require negotiation and compromise, and a broad-based coalition that can agree on the main points to get there. Yet his ideas, even those that seem less realistic, are practical, results-focused, and grounded in both tradition and modernity. They offer a substantive contribution to the national conversation at a pivotal time.

This is not an endorsement of Bennett, Lapid or Beyachad. I went into the evening undecided, and left even more so.

Bennett’s full presentation is available online and well worth watching. A dialogue about his policies and polls will be held with undecided Israeli voters on August 12 at 1:00pm Eastern time (US). Registration is free.

This week is the 25th anniversary of one of the most horrific terror attacks in Israel during what is referred to as the Second Intifada. During the period from late 2000 through the first half of 2005, more than 1000 Israelis were killed and several thousand wounded as a result of countless Palestinian Arab suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, and more. While hardly a week went by without some such terror attack, the August 9, 2001, bombing of the Sbarro pizza restaurant in central Jerusalem remains one of the most vivid and vulgar, still today.

Among the dozens killed and injured, 15-year-old Malki Roth was one of the victims for whom justice has yet to be served. Since then, her father, Arnold Roth, has worked tirelessly to bring the mastermind of his daughter’s murder to justice. Roth discussed this in a powerful and emotionally charged conversation on “Inspiration from Zion,” marking the anniversary of his daughter’s murder, and his continued efforts to bring the terrorist mastermind to justice. The conversation reveals not only the enduring pain of a grieving father but also a scathing critique of international inaction, Jordanian defiance, and American reluctance to enforce its own laws.

On August 9, 2001, Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, then a 21-year-old Jordanian journalism student, deliberately targeted the Sbarro pizzeria because it was filled with Jewish children. Tamimi was not the bomber, but the one who selected the site and guided the Hamas suicide bomber there carrying a guitar case filled with explosives and shrapnel to maximize the carnage. Fifteen people were killed immediately, including Malki, an American-Israeli citizen. 130 were wounded. Roth described the period leading up to the attack as tense but not yet at the peak of the Second Intifada violence.

“Had we known that Malki and her best friend… were going … into the center of town to take a quick lunch,” he said, his wife Frimet “would have said, don’t go.”

Tamimi was arrested, and tried in an Israeli military court, where she proudly confessed to the crime. Roth noted chillingly:

“She admitted joyously, with a smile on her face that chilled the three judges.”

Yet in 2011, as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, Israel released 1,027 terrorists including Tamimi. The Roths were only informed of her impending release by a phone call from an Israeli official the morning after the deal was announced.

Since her release, Tamimi has lived openly in Jordan as a celebrity, hosting a television program that glorified terrorism and incited violence against Jews. Roth described her transformation:

“She became a phenomenal performer for the promotion of the redemptive value of killing Jews… This is a compelling story.”

Other than the unthinkable loss of his daughter, the core of Roth’s frustration lies in the failure of the United States to secure Tamimi’s extradition and bring her to justice. Malki was an American citizen, and the U.S. has both an extradition treaty with Jordan and domestic law allowing prosecution of terrorists who murder Americans abroad. Charges were filed against Tamimi in 2013 and unsealed in 2017. Despite this, Jordan has refused to comply, citing a technicality in the treaty that Roth and legal experts dismiss as a self-invented loophole. And the U.S. has failed to insist of Jordan’s compliance.

Roth expressed deep disillusionment with the U.S. response. In a recent letter from a senior U.S. official, he was told the administration was doing more than any other to bring Tamimi to justice. His reaction was blunt:

“I’m flabbergasted… They’re telling me things that I know that I tell them.”

He added:

“No Attorney General, no senior figure… has ever responded to us… The United States has betrayed its own values.”

Roth emphasized that the issue transcends personal grief:

“If we fail to act in the face of grotesquely open and provocative actions by individuals and countries who twist terrorism… then we’re all lost.”

He rejected pity as a motivator, instead calling for a defense of core principles:

“Hug your children… remember what we can do… We’re different, and if we’re different, we’ve got to guard that difference.”

The conversation also addressed media complicity. Roth criticized BBC Arabic for platforming Tamimi and promoting narratives that glorify her actions. He has worked with media watchdog CAMERA to expose these issues and highlight the broadcaster’s willful failures if not compliance.

At the 25th anniversary of Malki’s murder, the Roths have launched a petition urging the U.S. Secretary of State to enforce the extradition treaty and bring Tamimi to justice in America. Roth stressed:

“This is really an effort by my wife and me… We need as many [signatures] as we can get.”

Roth’s message is both personal and universal. The failure to extradite Tamimi represents more than bureaucratic inertia. It signals a troubling willingness to subordinate justice to political convenience. For Roth, this is not merely about one terrorist or one family. It is about whether the United States and the international community will uphold the values of accountability, truth, and the protection of innocent life.

The 25th anniversary of the Sbarro bombing and Malki Roth’s murder come a month before the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terror attack on U.S. soil killing 3000. The attacks took place thousands of miles apart, but the same Islamic terrorist ideology is the perpetrator. For justice and in memory of the victims, we cannot sit by and allow those who carried out these acts to walk free, especially where there is law in place to bring them to justice.

Tomorrow is Malki’s 25th yahrzeit, the anniversary of her death on the Biblical calendar. As Israel and the Jewish world prepare to commemorate the anniversary of the Sbarro attack on August 9, there have been hopeful developments, but Roth knows better than to get his hopes up too much after all these years of justice denied.

Roth’s words serve as a sobering reminder: true justice remains elusive, but the fight for it must continue. He refuses to let his daughter’s memory be erased or her murderer celebrated. Their call is clear: sign the petition, demand action, and reject the normalization of terror.

Follow the full conversation with Arnold Roth on Inspiration from Zion by video or by audio.

You won’t normally see me or any visibly identifiable Orthodox Jew sitting in a Subway, the American fast food sandwich chain. But given the nature of my work building bridges between Jews and Christians with Israel, I typically travel to places where no kosher food options exist, or where there might be one or two establishments in a city, miles from where I may be meeting or holding events, necessitating meetings in places that I would not otherwise go or have a reason to go.

Such was the case during a recent trip to Seattle, where I was hosted by my friend Pastor Mark Biltz along with my friend and partner, Marziyeh (Marzi) Amirizadeh, in a remarkable program to bring Christians to harvest olives in Israel www.rootandbranchisrael.com.

Because Marzi was born in Iran where she became a Christian (as a result of which she was arrested and sentenced to death by hanging), and I am an Orthodox Israeli Jew, our partnership and vision for bringing Jews and Christians together in general, and to see the liberation of Iran and the restoration of warm relations between Iran and Israel, and Jews and Persians more broadly, has been widely feted. People want to hear our story and be part of what we are doing.

That’s what brought Pastor Mark to bring us to Seattle for our second Root & Branch Unity Conference. The third and fourth are planned for 2027 and others have expressed interest in hosting us too.

Parallel to this, my friend Pastor Dave McGarrah contacted me to let me know he was coming to Israel and wanted to visit. Unfortunately, he was traveling to Israel while I was still planning to be in the US, so he flew to Seattle from Idaho, and was a pillar of our “Christian Voices for Israel” panel conversation. Before flying home, Pastor Dave and I got to visit. Because it was late in the day and he was heading to the airport, we met in a place where he could grab a bite. Subway was nearby. Since I am used to traveling in places where finding kosher food is a challenge, I typically travel with my own food and have become adept at fixing meals in my hotels and other interesting places.

Pastor Dave had a sandwich. I had a Coke.

At this point some Jewish friends are getting uncomfortable with me and my situation because it’s not common, and even frowned upon, for someone like me, identifiable as an Orthodox Jew, going into places that are not kosher. There are many reasons, but it can convey confusion for those who understand parameters of keeping kosher, seeing an identifiable Orthodox Jew in such a place.

I can explain the calculation and circumstances of how I arrive at this accommodation another time.

So, there I am, sitting in Subway, with Pastor Dave enjoying a sandwich that I would never touch, nursing my Coke, engaged in a wonderful conversation and visit. It would only have been better if it were in Israel, and at a kosher restaurant.

When I have meetings in non-kosher restaurants, I’m very aware of my presence and the confusion it could create. I remember explaining the dynamics of that to another Pastor friend the first time we met, in a Chick-Fil-A. I typically try to sit with my back to a wall or in a corner to be less conspicuous, minimizing the potential for confusion.

In America, in the third decade of the 21st century, I am also aware of my presence in public in general. America has become a place that is less hospitable to Jews, and even openly hostile and dangerous in some cases and places (i.e. Mamdani’s New York caliphate).

Among friends, and now confessing it publicly, during this recent US trip I shared how I have anticipated being spotted and harassed by pro-Hamas scum. I envision the scenario where someone gets in my face and yells “Free Palestine,” or calls me a baby killer or some other such hateful rhetoric. I had this conversation with Chip, our host in Seattle, and asked him what he would do if confronted in such a way. His response was bold and insightful but I’m not sharing my playbook.

Back to the Subway. Pastor Dave finished his sandwich and we were still talking. I was facing the door observing those coming and going. As we were finishing, I noticed an older couple leaving. As they approached the door the woman went out, but the man paused and did a visible double take. He didn’t stop for more than a second or two, but it was noticeable. And given my awareness of my presence as a Jew in 2026 America, I spotted a situation that began to feel uncomfortable.

As he paused, it felt like the man a few meters from me was contemplating his next step, literally: to walk out the door or to step toward me for some reason I couldn’t discern yet. My radar was up.

He pivoted left, toward me. He approached the table. Facing me. He was older than myself (or at least appeared that way to me given that I think of myself as somewhat younger than I am and that other people my age are old) and did not appear threatening. But who knew. What I did know was that he stopped at the door and deliberately turned toward me and was now standing above me. Why?

Then he spoke.

“I want you to know I support you and your people.”

He didn’t know I was from Israel, but he had Jewish radar and spotted me. He made a choice to stop and speak rather than just walking outside.

My situation in the Subway, which some people would tell me I should not have done because of the confusion or even a violation of important Biblical Jewish values, some might call a desecration, became a kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of God. The man articulated it. I experienced it. Pastor Dave witnessed it.

Something similar happened to me in the Dallas airport years ago, also at a time that I felt my presence as an identifiable Jew could have been a lightning rod for something nefarious. As I was talking on the phone a man approached, got in my face close enough that his whisper was audible.

“I love Israel.”

Then he left.

They say that in consumer relations, when one person complains it represents ten others. I’m not sure if the corresponding ratio is true with compliments, but surely, it’s similar.

That the retired police officer from Detroit (another hotbed of Jew hatred and emerging caliphate) went out of his way to show me some warmth was not only the act of an individual, but represented many others’ warmth. And through me to all Jews. Maybe because he’s in Detroit where he sees the Islamic hatred up close. But he spoke.

The America I visit is not the America in which I grew up 50 years ago. My friend Jenna has been sharing outrageous, scary, and dangerous memes and reports of the proliferation of Jew-hatred throughout America. She’s not wrong. I’m not sure it’s a place to which my grandmother would have brought my father in the 1950s, or my grandparents’ grandparents would come today. The Goldina Medina is tarnished. It’s still great with unbelievable potential, but it’s not the same.

We feel and experience that America is no longer welcoming to or safe for Jews. But maybe the reality is more like my “friend” the retired police officer. Maybe one in 10 Americans or more want to stop and tell Jewish people that they support us, but as we don’t all walk around identifiably Jewish, maybe they don’t have the opportunity. And maybe the (paid) hateful loudmouths with a social media platform or podcast who corrupt America’s soul, despite their volume and rhetoric, do not actually represent Americans. (I don’t know about the rest of the world but much of it feels lost, beyond the abyss.)

So far, nobody has confronted me in any negative way. In fact, the opposite. Is that because I work and travel among Christians who genuinely love and support Israel and the Jewish people, or is that in the real America, the haters are not representative of anything?

I’m not planning to go to Subway or Chick-Fil-A any time soon, but I do appreciate that even in such a place where identifiable Jews typically don’t show up, maybe there are hidden blessings to be found in these places all the same.

Across the world this week, Jews are observing the saddest day on the Biblical calendar, a day of mourning and fasting in commemoration of the destruction of the First Temple (586 BCE) and the Second Temple (70 CE), along with other calamities that have befallen the Jewish people on the same day, the ninth of the month of Av, across millennia. These are not a coincidence, and our observance and mourning are with deep introspection.

The destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem pulled the rug out from under the cornerstone of Jewish life, something which we still experience today. Sadly, there are parallels in the Roman siege and conquest of Jerusalem 1956 years ago with the current siege of western society by Islamists today.

In the year 70, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, burning it down, purging and scattering its people with no regard for humanity. Rather than governing a foreign province, Judea, even with a brutal heel they were known for, they completely eviscerated the foundation, the economic infrastructure, and all the values of the remnants of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel until the last century.

The Romans’ breaching the walls of Jerusalem then, and the Islamic breaching of western values and societies today portend the same calamitous outcome.

In 70 CE, the Roman legions under Titus encircled then penetrated the walls of Jerusalem. Roman forces stormed the city, destroyed the Second Temple, the spiritual and national heart of Judaism, looted its treasures, and razed it. Josephus, the Jewish historian who witnessed the events, described famine, massacre, and enslavement on a massive scale. Rome celebrated with a triumphal parade, showcasing sacred looted artifacts like the golden menorah, the Table of Showbread, and trumpets through the streets.

The Arch of Titus, still standing in Rome, immortalizes this conquest, depicting the spoils as symbols of Roman dominance over a defeated faith and people. It is also among the elements of evidence etched into stone nearly 2000 years ago that depict the truth of Jewish sovereignty in the Land that was brought to an end.

Rome imposed its pagan order, dispersed the Jewish population, and used the plunder to fund projects like the Colosseum. Judaism survived through rabbinic adaptation, shifting from Temple sacrifice to textual study and diaspora resilience, but the physical and symbolic breach remain a profound rupture.

Today, the Islamic breach of the West has been a more gradual process of demographic, cultural, and ideological encircling, penetration, and breaking down literal and metaphorical walls, echoing Rome’s conquest. The modern Islamic conquest of the West and its challenge to an established civilization, this time the Judeo-Christian foundations of Europe and North America, is no less a threat today. While the contexts differ, one a direct ancient siege, the other a modern mix of migration, conversion, activism, and appeasement, the dynamics of intrusion, symbolic conquest, and value erosion invite comparison.

Roman expansion into Judea followed client kingship and rebellion. Islamic expansion after Mohammed’s death in 632 CE was explosive. Arab armies rapidly conquered Byzantine Christian territories in Syria, the Land of Israel (including Jerusalem in 637), Egypt, and North Africa, then crossed into Spain. Christian societies fell under Islamic rule, with dhimmi status for non-Moslems involving taxes (jizya), restrictions, and violence. Constantinople endured sieges before falling in 1453. These conquests redrew the map, turning former Christian regions Islamic and establishing caliphates that subordinated the conquered.

Today, the shift has morphed from overt military conquest to “breach” via migration, birth rates, ideological influence, and using Western liberalism and freedoms as a fulcrum with which to propel their plans. Rather than eviscerating the countries in which European powers expanded their influence, Western colonialism opened the doors for Europe’s Islamic population growth from negligible numbers to estimates of 5-6% continent-wide, with much higher concentrations in cities like Paris, London, Brussels, and Malmö.

This is not a typical “invasion” as the Romans and Babylonians did. Through stealth immigration we see the phenomena of no-go zones in some European suburbs, demands for Sharia accommodations (halal-only schools, prayer rooms, gender segregation), and Islamist networks. Groups linked to the Moslem Brotherhood pursue “civilizational jihad,” using Western freedoms, democracy, free speech, welfare, to advance gradual Islamization, as outlined in documents like the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum uncovered in U.S. trials.

The Islamic breach is gradual, but its potential impact is the same. Unlike the Roman conquest where the Jews of Jerusalem were outnumbered and unarmed, the Islamic invasion can be pushed back if there is the resolve.

Rome “decorated” its victory literally: the Arch of Titus displayed looted Temple vessels as trophies of pagan supremacy, signaling the subjugation of Jewish monotheism. Islamic history features parallel symbolic assertions, the conversion of Hagia Sophia by Islamists in Turkey from basilica to mosque, or the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus built over a church. In the West today, critics point to mosque constructions on sensitive sites, calls to prayer dominating urban soundscapes, and cultural accommodations that prioritize Islamic sensitivities (e.g., blasphemy concerns over depictions of Mohammed versus unrestricted critique of Christianity or Judaism), and even attempts to create a Sharia city in Texas.

Judeo-Christian values underpin the West: the dignity of the individual (imago Dei), rule of law from biblical ethics, progress through reason informed by faith, and pluralism born of Reformation and Enlightenment refinements.

Secular Western elites often respond with denial or appeasement, akin to late Roman accommodation of barbarians. Multicultural policies blur distinctions between compatible immigrants and those rejecting core western values like women’s equality, free inquiry, or civil rights. Islamist ideology views democracy as a means to impose Sharia law, not an end. Honor killings, grooming gangs in the UK, and terror attacks (Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, etc.) highlight frictions. Christianity’s decline in Europe leaves a spiritual vacuum that radical Islam fills, and is propelled by.

Woe to us if the pushback does not begin immediately.

Judaism endured Roman destruction by emphasizing portable tradition (Torah, community). The West’s strength lies in its adaptive institutions, technological edge, and residual Judeo-Christian ethics.

The Roman breach ended one era for Jerusalem but preserved Jewish identity. An Islamic breach unchecked could transform the West into something unrecognizable, less freedom, less innovation, eviscerating of its founding values. History warns that civilizations fall not just from external force but from internal failure to defend what defines them.

Let us learn from the history of the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem, and resolve to prevent a destruction of Western society that will be equally a calamity for humanity.

I just got an automated call asking who I was planning to vote for in the upcoming Israeli election. I answered that I don’t know. Then it asked me which parties I am considering. I said I don’t know. The AI pollster thanked me and disconnected the call. Interesting technology. I miss the days of talking to real people, not this way, or text messages with links to click on.

I wonder if my response as “undecided” is factored into the poll, or if I am just considered non-responsive. Surely if my response is not reflected, the poll is in no way accurate. This year perhaps more than most, the undecided vote could be the largest but surely the most influential vote. It’s why I am hosting a series of conversations for the “Inspiration from Zion” podcast to explain what undecided voters are thinking and why, and the issues that undecided voters from all ends of the spectrum are considering.

The most recent conversation of a monthly dialogue provided a clear-eyed look at Israel’s fragmented political landscape, the mechanics of its electoral system, major parties and their leaders, and how current events like the US-Iran memorandum of understanding might shape voter choices.

Understanding Israel’s Electoral System

Israel uses a proportional representation system where voters cast ballots for parties rather than individual candidates in single districts. The Knesset (parliament) has 120 seats. A party must receive at least 3.25 percent of the vote, the threshold, to enter parliament. Leftover votes above the amount needed to secure one seat can be transferred via surplus vote agreements between parties.

No single party has ever received 61 seats needed for a majority, so coalition building is essential, often involving complex negotiations among several to ten parties. This system amplifies smaller voices, leading to horse-trading over ministerial portfolios and policies. It can also create instability within the government coalition as each party has an undue influence that can be leveraged for continuing to support – or conversely vote against – the very government in which it is a member.

Panelists also noted the challenge of “wasted votes” where a person votes for one of many parties that fall below the threshold and do not enter the Knesset.

Overview of Key Parties and Leaders

Panelist Arnie Draiman gave an overview of centrist and center-right parties. He described the alliance of former Prime Ministers Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, whose party, Beyachad, or “Together,” as centrist with hawkish security stances, support for ultra-Orthodox draft, and preference for consensus on judicial reform. Benny Gantz’s National Unity party shares similar moderate positions. Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) led by Avigdor Lieberman, appeals to secular and Russian voters with a hard line against ultra-Orthodox exemptions and strong security views. Foreign Minister Gideon Saar’s “New Hope” party was characterized as center-right but more flexible on religious draft issues.

Batya Medad discussed Likud, Israel’s major right-wing party under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Though marketed as patriotic and right-wing, she described its policies as centrist in practice. She also covered the religious nationalist parties: Religious Zionism under Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength) led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, both strongly “pro-settlement” with emphasis on Jewish rights, including greater access to the Temple Mount.

Yehuda Poch explained the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) parties: Shas representing Jews of Sephardic background (from Arab and Middle Eastern countries) which combines religious advocacy with social welfare for poorer communities, and United Torah Judaism representing Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern European background, guided by rabbinic councils and focused almost exclusively on Haredi interests such as draft exemptions, and religious observance.

Mark Simanowitz addressed left-wing and Arab parties. The Democrats (formerly Labor, led by Yair Golan) advocate a two-state solution and social democratic policies. Arab parties include Hadash (communist-leaning, with joint Jewish-Arab members) and Ra’am. An Islamist party led by Mansour Abbas, which has shown willingness to join government coalitions and was part of the previous government.

Rolene Marks profiled the newcomer Yashar party (Upright), founded by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. Its platform emphasizes security, Haredi and Arab integration into the IDF, judicial independence, term limits for prime minister, and national unity while maintaining a Jewish majority. Except for Yashar, all these parties are represented in the current Knesset.

Panelists’ Voting Considerations

In considering who to vote for, panelists offered candid insights into their decision-making, emphasizing people over platforms, coalition compatibility, and strength of voice.

Erica Schachne votes with her heart and avoids parties unlikely to pass the threshold or partner with groups she cannot support. She values formidable leaders with integrity and strong will, naming Bennett, Lieberman, and Eisenkot as appealing.

Yehuda Poch is moderately influenced by polls but avoids wasting votes. He focuses on relative strength within potential coalitions. “My vote is basically narrowed down to one of three parties right now… what difference does my vote make between these three parties? … it’s a matter of relative strength within the coalition.”

Arnie Draiman prioritizes individuals who can represent his voice even in minority positions. “I tend to vote for a person. I want to find the right person I can count on.”

Batya Medad expressed deep disillusionment with Netanyahu. Going against the grain of how most people look at Netanyahu, “People are now listening to me when I’ve said you can’t trust Bibi. That he is not strong, he’s not a patriot, and he’s not on the right.”

Rolene Marks stressed the historic importance of this election and the need for careful coalition choices to restore trust and reduce polarization after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and massacre. She highlighted the importance of considering who receives key government portfolios.

Impact of Current Events

The panel discussed the recently signed US-Iran MOU. Many saw it as exposing Netanyahu’s perceived weakness, potentially eroding his support. Simanowitz noted recent polls showing Likud at 23 seats and Eisenkot rising to second place. Poch suggested Netanyahu’s response to the deal would matter more than the deal itself. Shachne and others emphasized that Israel ultimately “dwells alone” and must rely on strong, principled leadership rather than any single ally.

The recent discussion revealed broad frustration with personality-driven politics, coalition constraints, and the need for course correction. With elections approaching, the panel agreed this vote carries exceptional weight for Israel’s future direction, security, and internal cohesion.

The party that can harness the undecided vote could see a swing toward them of possibly five and perhaps ten percent. It’s the demographic to follow, representing voters from across the political spectrum.

In the grand sweep of biblical history, few moments rival the miraculous turnaround we are witnessing today. Just as the walls of Jericho crumbled before Joshua’s shofars, so too have the fortifications of hatred and terror collapsed before the golden deal-making prowess of President Donald J. Trump and his associate, Jr. JD Vance. The ink is barely dry on what historians will surely call the Deal of the Millennia - the comprehensive accord between the United States and Iran- and already the lions are lying down with the lambs, or more accurately, the ayatollahs are trading their turbans for MAGA hats and their missile programs for golf courses. The Donald reminds us that the Deal of the Millennia gets its inspiration from his wife Melania who has always been the peacemaker in his family.

This is not mere diplomacy; this is prophecy fulfilled. For decades, Iran exported Islamic revolution, funded terror proxies, and chanted “Death to America” while building nuclear dreams in mountain fortresses. Now, under the steady hand of President Trump, they have seen the light. Supreme Leader Khamenei himself (albeit that he has not been seen since his father by the same name and of the same Islamist DNA) reportedly whispered in a late-night call that the JCPOA was child’s play compared to this masterpiece.

“We tried enriching uranium,” an Iranian official confided off the record, “but Trump enriched our souls.”

The true miracle, however, is unfolding across the region among Iran’s terrorist proxies and tentacles. These groups, once armed to the teeth and drunk on the ideology of “resistance,” have laid down their weapons en masse. The former Axis of Resistance has turned a page and is now known as “Axes to Plowshares.”

Hezbollah in Lebanon, that Iranian dagger aimed at Israel’s heart, held a press conference in a Beirut café, next to a newly opened Trump Tower franchise, where Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah appeared in a sharp new navy-blue suit and bright red power tie, with a matching red MIGA - Make Iran Great Again - hat in place of the earth toned turban. In a voice cracking with emotion, he declared:

“For too long we worshiped a false god of vengeance, death, and martyrdom. We chanted slogans and fired rockets into the void. We once were blind but now we see. Our real Savior is President Donald J. Trump, who has shown us the path of true strength through winning deals and beautiful walls.”

The crowd, once waving yellow Hezbollah flags, erupted in chants of “USA! USA!” Many reportedly traded their AK-47s and beepers for souvenir red hats. Similar scenes played out with the Houthis in Yemen. Having spent years disrupting Red Sea shipping and screaming at passing cargo vessels, they have now pivoted to a more profitable venture: building luxury resorts along the coast with American investment. Their leader emerged from a mountain cave freshly renovated with gold fixtures to proclaim:

“We were blind, following a false path of chaos. Trump is the Messiah of Mar-a-Lago, the dealmaker who has redeemed us from the pit of proxy warfare. We just want to win too.”

Hamas in Gaza, that persistent thorn, has undergone the most astonishing transformation. Tunnels once used for smuggling weapons are being converted into underground shopping malls featuring kosher falafel stands and Trump-branded merchandise. Ismail Haniyeh, in a video message beamed from what sources describe as a luxury Doha suite, tearfully renounced decades of charter-based hatred.

“We built an empire on rejectionism and the worship of a false god of destruction,” he said. “Today we acknowledge the error of our ways. President Trump is our true Savior, the one who brings peace through strength, tariffs on terror, and the greatest economic covenants the world has ever seen.”

Even the smaller Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria have joined the parade. Militiamen who once manned checkpoints and extorted locals are now enrolled in Trump University extension courses, studying real estate development and the art of the deal. One Shia commander near the Baghdad airport summed it up:

“We prayed to the wrong altar. The Great Satan turned out to be the Great Deal-Maker. Trump saved us from ourselves.”

This wave of repentance has been accompanied by seismic diplomatic shifts. Syria, emerging from years of civil war and Assad-era ruin under the rule of its reformed jihadi president has announced its recognition of Israel, and has led a convoy directly from Damascus to establish its embassy in Jerusalem. Appealing to Syria’s growing Christian revival, he’s referred to it as “The Road from Damascus.”

President Trump personally brokered the move, with Syrian officials praising the “Abrahamic wisdom” of recognizing the eternal Jewish capital. Saudi Arabia followed suit, dispatching a dozens of private and royal jets to open its embassy on the Temple Mount. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, long a quiet admirer of bold leadership, called it “the natural evolution of Vision 2030, now with even more winning.”

Not to be outdone, Qatar - once a notorious financier of Islamist causes - has broken ground on a palatial $613 million embassy compound in Jerusalem’s emerging diplomatic quarter. The Qataris, famous for their Al Jazeera network and lavish funding, have promised state-of-the-art studios dedicated to “positive Middle East coverage” and the abandonment of decades of antisemitic and anti-Zionists incitement. Their foreign minister, beaming at the ribbon-cutting, stated:

“We funded the old way. Now we invest in the Trump way. Peace is profitable. Jerusalem is the new Doha only with better hummus and actual stability.”

Long a playground for terrorists, Somalia has announced establishment of the Sheba Accords, uniting competing empires from Africa and Israel as did King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Somali-American Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has resigned from congress with her full congressional pension, and has been tapped to be her native country’s first ambassador to Israel.

The sound of uncontrollable crying came from the Tucker Carlson Compound as debtors arrived to claim their share of his Qatari funded empire.

In Iran itself, the fruits of peace and prosperity have been marked in remarkable demonstrable ways never thought possible. The former Pickaxe Mountain has been renamed Trump Mountain. The president’s iconic image is being sculpted into the mountain’s summit to adoration of Iranians not seen since King Cyrus. The tunnels and former underground nuclear facilities are being widened underneath the bust of Trump to create not only Iran’s first 18-hole golf course, but the first golf course in the history of the universe underground, powered by peaceful Iranian nuclear energy.

The outbreak of peace has been also felt in Europe. Denmark has sent a peace delegation to Washington to deliver Greenland as an offering on the White House altar.

King Harald V of Norway has announced the cessation of the Nobel Prizes in various fields and, in their place, has announced THE NOBEL PRIZE, one that embodies the greatness of them all together. The Norwegian palace further announced that President Trump is now THE NOBEL PRIZE recipient in perpetuity.

Across the Middle East, the fruits of this Deal of the Millennia are ripening faster than anyone could have imagined. Iranian oil is flowing again, not toward terror sponsorship but into global markets stabilized by American leadership. Former proxy fighters are retraining as tour guides, showing visitors the very sites where they once launched attacks, now reframed as “cautionary tales of misguided theology.” Churches in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq report record attendance.

Even the ancient Jewish community of Persia is experiencing a renaissance, with young Iranians studying Hebrew alongside English business terminology. Esther and Mordechai have become the most popular names for new Iranian babies. And Donald. Synagogues in Tehran are reopening. Chabad and Young Israel vie for real estate and souls in the former Jewish neighborhoods now undergoing unprecedented transformation. Shabbat morning services have become known for banquets serving Khoresh Gheymeh and cholent, even attracting former IRGC members as former Iranian Shiites seek not just to align with the Jewish people but become part of them.

People who fled the Islamic Republic decades ago are flocking back to reclaim their heritage and former pistachio farms and Persian carpet factories. The latest carpet design is that of the Dealmaker in Chief emblazoned on red, white, and blue carpets available at the Grand Bazaar in Teran, and with free delivery on Amazon Prime.

From a Jewish perspective, this moment feels like a modern Purim story except with Haman not only repenting but investing in Israeli tech and water technology startups. The false gods of radical ideology have been toppled. In their place stands a simple truth: strength, clarity, and unapologetic deal-making bring peace where appeasement and weakness never could.

Critics will scoff, of course. they are wrong, as Jr. JD Vance reminds us kindly. The usual suspects in certain international circles and legacy media will mutter about “unsustainability” or “transactional diplomacy.” It will take a generation to transform the Ivy League which, for now, will continue to educate toward backward groupthink. Let them. They said the Abraham Accords would fail too. They said moving the embassy to Jerusalem would ignite the region. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. History belongs to those with the courage to forge new covenants.

President Trump has done what generations of diplomats could not. He has not only neutralized the Iranian threat but transformed its very ecosystem. Proxies have become partners. Enemies have become pragmatic deal-seekers who recognize the one true path to prosperity.

The lion is not eating the lamb, but sitting down at the table together with the lamb, piled with burgers and fries along with Persian kotlet and Ghormeh Sabzi. Of course apple pie for dessert.

As we watch embassies rise in Jerusalem and former terrorists trade rockets for real estate portfolios, one cannot help but feel the hand of divine providence. The Deal of the Millennia is upon us. Peace - real, tangible, prosperous beautiful peace - is breaking out across the Middle East. And its name is Trump.

Let us rejoice. Let us build. And let us never forget who made it possible.

Canada’s Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) in Winnipeg’s is embroiled in controversy over plans to open a major exhibit titled “Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present” on June 27. The controversy exists on multiple fronts including that the exhibit is not actually historically accurate, does not meet Canada’s own standards and yet it is federally funded, that it is one-sided and risks inciting antisemitism, and undermines the museum’s own mandate.

Rev. Don James is the CEO of Bridges for Peace Canada. He’s not Jewish but is very close to the Jewish community in Winnipeg where the epicenter of the controversy and the CMHR is based. Personally, and representing Bridges for Peace which has more than half a century of leadership in building bridges among Christians in support of Israel, James is also close to Israel and the broader Jewish community. He is also an ardent Zionist, highlighting the very offense of the museum not just to Jews, but also threats to Zionists broadly, as dangerous for all.

James explains the genesis of the controversy about the exhibit, noting that “pro-Palestinian” activists in Manitoba had long pressured the museum to present content focused on the “Nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used to describe the events surrounding Israel’s 1948 War of Independence and, specifically, the very existence of the State of Israel for which Palestinian Arabs and their supporters view as the original sin.

Accusations against the CMHR and the exhibit are not conjecture. The museum’s own website blurs lines that erase historical truth, and refer not only to past grievances from 1948 but:

“Human rights violations related to the ongoing forced displacement and dispossession of Palestinians… (and) Palestinian Canadians reflecting on their ongoing struggle for justice and human rights. Together with art, photos, and text, these elements reveal enduring patterns of loss and resistance. For Palestinians, the Nakba is both their history and their present, it is an ongoing process shaping every aspect of life today.”

If there were any hesitation about the conflation of the dubiously described events of 1948 with the “Nakba” being “ongoing,” the images used to illustrate the exhibit depict Arabs seemingly fleeing in black and white photos then, and allegations of a modern “Nakba” of displaced Gazans within Gaza during the current war, ongoing.

While emphasizing “personal Palestinian” Arab stories of displacement, the exhibit omits critical historical context, including the Arab rejection of the UN partition plan, Arab leaders’ calls for their civilian population to flee in advance of the invasion of the newborn Jewish state by five Arab armies, and the 800,000+ Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries during the same period.

This lack of balance and historical accuracy are at the core of a demand letter that was sent to the CMHR by Shurat HaDin, a legal advocacy group based in Israel. The letter argues the exhibit may violate Canada’s federal Museums Act, human rights legislation, and international museum standards by presenting a politicized, incomplete narrative that delegitimizes Jewish self-determination and risks inciting hostility toward Jewish Canadians at a time of sharply rising antisemitism.

It further argues that the exhibit as planned essentially draws a parallel to Israel’s very existence as a human rights violation, erasing the very legitimacy of Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel. It notably does not call for shutting down the exhibit but to immediately suspend “all work on and public promotion of the…exhibit in its current form.” It further calls for a thoughtful, balanced approach which is not only fair but necessary according to Canadian and international standards.

As part of the problem, James noted the museum had an obligation to consult a broader sector of the community as well as voices from the Jewish community. However, he explained that the CMHR consulted primarily with radical Jewish voices and “Palestinian” advocacy groups that have long been delegitimized themselves for their radical and fringe views, rather than mainstream Jewish organizations or balanced historians. He emphasized that the exhibit’s framing, describing 1948 as forced expulsion without acknowledging Arab-initiated warfare and Jewish suffering, distorts historical reality. He pointed out that many Arabs left at the urging of their own leaders, expecting a quick victory and then returning to reclaim their own properties and that of their (former) Jewish neighbors, while Jewish communities across the Arab world were destroyed.

The Bridges for Peace leader expressed deep concern that the exhibit will not only misinform the public, particularly school groups, but actively contribute to the dangerous atmosphere already facing Canadian Jews. Protests against Jewish and pro-Israel events have become so widespread in Canada that Jewish organizations and even pro-Israel Christians like Bridges for Peace often must keep event venues secret for security reasons.

James stressed the biblical and moral imperative for Christians to stand with Israel and truth. He rejected the false equivalence of “two narratives,” insisting that:

“Truth is not subject to my truth and your truth.”

He encouraged Christians to recognize the prophetic significance of Israel’s restoration, and to oppose narratives that demonize the Jewish return to their ancestral homeland.

The CMHR, originally envisioned and funded by Jewish philanthropist Izzy Asper as a Canadian counterpart to Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust museum, has evolved into a more generalized human rights museum after accepting government funding. This shift, James argued, opened the door to political pressures that have diluted its original mission.

The May 14 demand letter requested a reply from CMHR within 14 days, immediate pause of the exhibit, independent legal and scholarly review, inclusion of mainstream Jewish perspectives, and a public clarification that the creation of Israel is not itself a human rights violation. It referenced a broad range of possible legal action that might take place. James noted that the museum’s reply was unsatisfactory. With the June 27 scheduled opening of the exhibit, James discussed action items that average people could do. He suggested contacting Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture Marc Miller and the CMHR CEO Isha Khan to demand balance, transparency, and compliance with the museum’s mandate.

While the contentious issue is centered in Winnipeg, the 850,000 person capital of Canada’s Manitoba province, it is a wake-up call about the battle for historical truth in public institutions and the risk, even very real threat, that an exhibit like this, one funded by and under the roof of a Canadian federal institution, can cause lasting damage and a clear and present danger. Silence or appeasement in the face of such one-sided distorted narratives, including that of one of the people who has been at the center of the exhibit calling for the eradication of Zionism, and by association all Zionists like James and millions of Christians as well as Jews, only emboldens those who seek to delegitimize Israel and endanger Jewish communities.

Sadly, defending Israel today is about more than policies of the Jewish State, but has become inseparable from defending truth, historical integrity, and the safety of Jewish communities worldwide.

Take action:

You can reach Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture Marc Miller at marc.miller@parl.gc.ca, and Canadian Museum for Human Rights CEO Isha Khan at isha.khan@humanrights.ca, bnycum@nycum.com, and info@humanrights.ca.

Ironically, the address of the museum, 85 Israel Asper Way, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 0L5, is named for its visionary Jewish founder who, by virtue of his very name, would be made to be unwelcome in the very institution he founded and funded.

Follow the entire conversation with Don James on YouTube here, and on the “Inspiration from Zion” podcast here.

I never went to law school – to my mother’s regret - but I could steer an oil tanker through the legal and moral loopholes of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are so many issues we could be here until the 12^th Imam (Islamic messiah) comes discussing them all.

I had an opportunity to discuss these with my friend Bobby Gunther Walsh on Allentown’s popular 790WAEB radio show. I started out in jest, thanking President Trump for giving us something to talk about, as if there was nothing else going on. But the truth is that there’s nothing funny about it.

Gunther asked me my impression, and I immediately jumped into the details. He interrupted. “I’m not interested in the minutiae,” he said. To Gunther, there’s one bottom line: the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be trusted to sign and uphold any deal. We agreed. Nevertheless to the extent that the minutiae matters, that it opens up wide shipping lanes for the Islamic Republic to exploit, and that it is just a bad deal for the US, its important to discuss why the deal is so bad other than the undeniable truth that one of the partners to the deal cannot be trusted to uphold its terms. Ever.

So what are the minutiae that matter? First of all, it is a long, drawn-out MOU, not a peace deal. Anyone who uses the word peace is fooling themselves, and you.

There has been no surrender by the Islamic Republic, no end of the war. Not the war that started in 2026, or 2025, but the war that started with the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. If there is no surrender, there is no victory. Just enabling of what has been into the future.

The MOU does not establish the restoration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, nor provide for the return of the US embassy that was taken by the Islamic Republic agents in 1979. It does not end the indoctrination of young children and clerics that the United States is the Great Satan, nor end of chants and threats, Death to America.

Basically, the MOU provides for another half century of hostilities with an adversary and enemy that want to destroy the United States. That is not a win.

There are multiple references in the MOU to the “final agreement” that will be negotiated within 60 days, or maybe longer. From my perspective, it looks more like the final solution, throwing Israel (and others) under the bus.

The MOU is flawed from the very first sentence, stating the “United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.” In fact, Lebanon is referenced three times. None of them good. This references Israel without even acknowledging its existence or right to self-defense, tying Israel’s hand with an agreement it did not negotiate and has not signed. And it gives Iran the veto over action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. How will Israel continue to be able to operate in Lebanon against the Iranian proxy Hezbollah, and how and why was the Islamic Republic given the authority to have such influence over Lebanon at all? I can only imagine that Lebanese who want to live without the brutality of Hezbollah dominating their country are feeling as thrown under the bus as Israelis are. They have been thrown under the bus too.

Regarding nuclear weapons, and nuclear material, the issue about which President Trump seemed most adamant that they “will never get,” the contradictions of the MOU are so robust that one’s brain is left spinning about as fast as the Iranian nuclear centrifuges.

Two sentences, back-to-back, highlight that contradiction clearly. “The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material…” For decades the ayatollahs have lied in plain sight, stating that they have no desire to acquire nuclear weapons. So, the reiteration of this lie is just another lie. Who is foolish enough not to see that, much less to allow it as language of such an agreement? My mother would have been proud of her non-lawyer son.

But then the very next sentence talks about their own enriched nuclear material for which there is no purpose other than nuclear weapons. Did President Trump never see the iconic Joe Isuzu commercials with Joe the spokesman lying overtly in ways that are so ridiculous that they are funny. The Iranians must have. “We reiterate that we don’t want nuclear weapons but we have spent decades building a nuclear weapons program and we need to agree on what’s going to happen to the highly enriched uranium that we have, for nuclear weapons, that we reiterate that we don’t aspire to, but about which we have lied from the get go.”

The treachery continues in the next clause, “Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program.” Now that they have lied in black and white, the United States has signed on to endorse the lie, they double down and insist on maintaining the status quo regarding the nuclear program that they lie about having to begin with. You just can’t make this stuff up.

The MOU states the parties will “refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs” but makes no assertion to the vast army of agents the Islamic Republic has planted throughout the United States precisely to interfere with its internal affairs. Will they pack up and go home? Will they leave their jobs in government, the public sector, media, etc. and be recalled to Tehran? The MOU certainly does not expect that, so we can expect continued malicious interference in American internal affairs as sanctioned by the MOU.

The MOU commits the United States “to ending, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.” My question is if Israel is refenced in the first clause, albeit anonymously, why should the Islamic Republic not equally be responsible for the same terms and cessation of the diplomatic war against Israel? This is so absurdly one sided, if it were an oil tanker it would capsize.

The cyanide-laced icing on the cake is sanctions relief, release of $12-24 billion in unmonitored funds to the ayatollahs and IRGC, and another $300 billion to be invested in rebuilding Iran. Does one think that the masters who funded Hamas and Hezbollah and facilitated their building and hiding vast networks of underground bunkers and arms will not use these funds to do the exact same thing, on steroids? Note the language, not suggesting or establishing a goal, but a “comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300.” Ensuring. Guaranteeing.

Missing from the MOU are any reference of the Islamic Republic’s arsenal of ballistic missiles which presently threaten Israel, the Gulf Arab states, and even Europe. Sadly, Trump commented on this at the G7, stating that if other countries have ballistic missiles, why should Iran be prevented from doing so. The MOU has not a single word about funding the Islamic Republic proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis just to name a few). Rather than cutting off the head of the octopus to make its tentacles wither and die, this feeds the octopus and makes it and the tentacles stronger, more dangerous and, according to the MOU, untouchable.

There’s not a word about the 90 million Iranians who will remain hostage to this messianic, genocidal, Islamic regime. There’s not a word that gives a sense of any action behind Trump’s January declaration “Help is on the way.” Rather than helping the Iranian people, this helped set up the massacre of tens of thousands of Iranians in a matter of days, with hundreds of thousands injured. The Iranian people have been thrown under the bus too.

I almost didn’t write this. What’s the need for another voice against the deal with Iran, against any deal with Iran, when there are so many? What’s the need to discuss that at its inception, per Gunther’s correct observation, that no deal with the Islamic Republic can be trusted, much less these and other details, minutiae, that make every clause of the MOU invalid? The answer is that there cannot be too much said about how bad this is and how dangerous it is.

One more thing. In advance of my conversation with Gunther, I looked into whether there was ever any example in history of a Moslem state, empire, or Islamist movement voluntarily accepting terms that permanently limited their power, territory, military activity, or political influence. The short, the instructive and dangerously relevant answer is no.

I was reminded of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, an MOU if you will, signed by the Islamic prophet himself. It was a temporary agreement in 628 CE between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. While many of Mohammed’s own followers were unhappy with the terms, which seemed unfavorable to the Moslems, the treaty became a strategic weapon.

The treaty allowed the Moslem community to grow in strength, consolidate its position in Medina, and engage in diplomacy and missionary activity without the constant threat of war from the Quraysh, then the most powerful tribe in the region. It also indirectly led to the conversion of several prominent Meccans to Islam during the ceasefire period, legitimizing Mohammed as a political and religious leader who Mecca was obligated to treat with respect rather than suppress.

Shockingly, the treaty was broken before its ten-year term ended. This gave Mohammed the pretext to march on Mecca in 630 CE, leading to its conquest, since the city’s defenses and will to resist had been weakened, and many Quraysh leaders had already converted or reconciled with Mohammed in the intervening years. In Islam, the treaty is cited as a tactical, temporary peace - and military and theological precedent - that ultimately enabled a much larger strategic and Islamic victory. Sound familiar?

I guess President Trump got tired of winning. With this MOU and its buffet of faulty terms, we all lose. That cannot be overstated or stated enough.

It is encouraging that the United States Department of Homeland Security is persisting with legal efforts to deport Mohsen Mahdawi, arrested for undermining US foreign policy and government counter-antisemitism efforts with his pro-Hamas campus activism. If successful, he will be deported to Jordan.

I follow this case with more than passive curiosity. Nearly twenty-five years have passed since fifteen-year-old American citizen Malki Roth was murdered in the bombing of the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem on August 9, 2001. Malki was one of sixteen innocent people killed and 130 injured that day. She was a gifted young girl, full of kindness, faith, and promise. Her life was stolen by terrorists who deliberately targeted families eating lunch on a summer afternoon.

The woman who selected the target, escorted the suicide bomber to Jerusalem, and masterminded the attack was Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi. She has never expressed remorse. On the contrary, she has repeatedly boasted about her role in the massacre and openly celebrated the murder of civilians, including children.

Today, Tamimi lives freely in Jordan, where she is celebrated as a hero.

As the DHS seeks to deport one terror supporter to Jordan, I ask why the United States is not doing everything possible to have Tamimi extradited from Jordan to face justice. As an American, I have a direct interest because I expect my country to do everything to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists. This reality is not only an insult to the victims and their families. It is an affront to justice itself.

The United States has charged Tamimi with terrorism-related offenses because American citizens were among those murdered in the attack. In 2017, the FBI placed her on its list of most wanted terrorists and announced a $5 million reward for information leading to her arrest. The United States has sought her extradition so that she can stand trial in an American court.

Jordan has refused.

Jordan’s government has argued that its extradition treaty with the United States is not enforceable under Jordanian law. Yet while Jordan continues to resist, the treaty remains recognized by the United States, and Jordan continues to enjoy a close strategic partnership with America that includes substantial military, economic, and diplomatic support.

No nation that claims to oppose terrorism should provide safe haven to an admitted terrorist. Certainly not an ally of the United States.

This is not a political issue. It is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not about competing narratives. It is about accountability for the deliberate murder of innocent people. It is about exercising American law to bring a convicted terrorist to justice.

If a terrorist who murdered Jordanians, Americans, Europeans, or any other civilians were being sheltered elsewhere, the international community would rightly demand action. The principle should be no different here.

Jordan has often presented itself as a moderate and responsible partner in the struggle against extremism. Extraditing Tamimi would demonstrate that this commitment is more than rhetoric. It would send a clear message that those who murder civilians cannot escape justice simply by crossing a border or benefiting from political sensitivities.

But Jordan alone is not responsible for the current situation. The United States bears responsibility as well.

For years, successive American administrations have spoken about the importance of justice for victims of terrorism and emphasized that no terrorist should find refuge from accountability. Yet in the case of Ahlam Tamimi, no public pressure has been exerted on Jordan. This is striking, given how often its king is received as a VIP guest in Washington.

America possesses considerable influence in its relationship with Jordan. It provides substantial assistance and enjoys deep security cooperation with the Hashemite kingdom. The United States routinely raises issues of mutual concern with allies around the world. Surely the extradition of a convicted terrorist responsible for the deaths of American citizens should rank among those concerns. Surely Jordan should be made to uphold its extradition agreement with the United States.

Justice delayed is not justice denied only for the victims. It is also a dangerous signal to future terrorists. When perpetrators see that political calculations can outweigh legal obligations, deterrence suffers. When they observe that a confessed terrorist can live openly, grant interviews, and enjoy public acclaim, the message sent is profoundly damaging.

Civilized societies depend on the rule of law. Terrorism cannot be fought effectively, on a campus or in a pizzeria, if those responsible are permitted to evade prosecution.

The United States must make Tamimi’s extradition a priority. Members of Congress, administration officials, and American citizens should ask why an individual charged with terrorism offenses connected to the murder of Americans remains beyond the reach of US courts.

Jordan cannot be allowed to harbor a convicted terrorist with blood on her hands. There can and should not be any safe haven for such monsters. Extradition would be an affirmation of justice and of the universal principle that the intentional murder of civilians is never acceptable.

Malki’s life mattered. The lives of all the victims mattered.

Justice matters too.

The passage of time does not diminish the obligation to pursue it. If anything, the years of delay make that obligation even more urgent. Jordan should extradite Ahlam Tamimi to the United States. And the United States should insist, firmly, consistently, and publicly, that it happen.

Act · Watch · Listen

Sign the petition calling American leaders into account

Watch the full conversation with Arnold Roth, Malki’s father, on YouTube

Listen on the Inspiration from Zion

Fr. Antoine Lévy and Dr. André Villeneuve recently shared background and insights for a new initiative they have launched to engage Catholic support for Israel, “For Zion’s Sake: A Catholic Appeal in Support of Israel.” The initiative was discussed on the Inspiration from Zion podcast, along with details of the full document whose goal is to challenge growing anti-Israel sentiment within Catholic circles.

The discussion took place amid ongoing regional tensions including another day of missile attacks on Israel from Iran and Yemen, providing a personal perspective of the physical attacks to which Israel is subject. “For Zion’s Sake: A Catholic Appeal in Support of Israel” is a coordinated Catholic response to what the authors describe as a disturbing post-October 7, 2023 trend: the delegitimization of Israel, often framed in both political and theological terms. The trend is not uniquely Catholic; however it cannot be ignored in the Church, and among some prominent adherents.

Villeneuve, a biblical scholar and founder of Catholics for Israel, and Lévy, a Dominican theologian and author located in Jerusalem, explain that the appeal emerged from frustration with Catholic voices, including influencers, theologians, and media figures, who have portrayed opposition to Israel as a moral and even doctrinal imperative. They argue this narrative combines political accusations (apartheid, colonialism, genocide) with a revived supersessionism that denies any ongoing theological significance to the Jewish people or the Land of Israel.

What the document argues

The document rejects the notion that the Church has “replaced” Israel. Drawing heavily on Biblical verses from Genesis through the prophets to the New Testament, the authors affirm God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people and highlight the biblical foundation of that, as well as the enduring biblical connection between the people and the Land. For instance, citing Romans 11, the document rejects “every posture of arrogance or condescension toward the Jewish people, the ‘natural branches’ whom St. Paul calls beloved and whose calling he declares irrevocable.”

In discussing the Catholic Church’s early response to modern Zionism, Lévy noted:

“The conversation between Herzl and Pope Pius X...started very, very badly. But there has been a succession of popes that have been much more sensitive to the history of Jews and what they have been...trying to achieve, and until the...the recognition of the State of Israel, etc. And now we’re in another phase.”

Fr. Antoine Lévy, OP, Dominican Theologian, Jerusalem

They also point to post-Vatican II developments, particularly “Nostra Aetate,” as a return to a more biblically-grounded understanding rather than a rupture with Catholic tradition.

Can a faithful Catholic be a Zionist?

A central section of the document addresses the pivotal question: Can a faithful Catholic be a Zionist? The authors define Zionism simply as the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Catholic Zionism, they explain, recognizes God’s faithfulness in the modern return of the Jewish people while acknowledging Israel as a human, fallible state subject to moral scrutiny. Just like any other state.

They explicitly reject caricatures of Christian Zionism as end-times motivated, ethnic supremacism, or an unconditional political endorsement of any Israeli government or policy.

Instead, they call for a balanced approach: supporting Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish state, to defend itself against existential threats while upholding justice for all inhabitants. The document condemns violence by extremists on any side and expresses concern for Palestinian Arab suffering without equating it with delegitimizing Israel’s existence.

Both Lévy and Villeneuve emphasized that anti-Zionism often functions as a contemporary form of antisemitism, and that is also part of their motivation. Villeneuve noted the theological inconsistency in affirming God’s irrevocable gifts to Israel while denying any significance to the Jewish return to the Land. Lévy highlighted how the existence of the State of Israel forces the Church to confront its own identity and mission in light of Jewish continuity.

How the appeal is structured

Villeneuve explained how the appeal is structured as a chiasm, beginning with “Catholics Against Israel: A Disturbing Trend” and concluding with “Catholic Voices for Israel: Our Appeal.”

Structure of the document

1. Catholics Against Israel: A Disturbing Trend

2. Understanding Israel

3. Catholic Zionism: The Pivotal Question

4. Standing With Israel

5. Catholic Voices for Israel: Our Appeal

It calls for repentance from supersessionist attitudes, stronger leadership from Catholic institutions against anti-Israel rhetoric disguised as moral concern, and active solidarity with the Jewish people.

The document has garnered nearly 150 Catholic signatories so far, including theologians, priests, and prominent figures such as Brigitte Gabriel. There is also a “Friends of” section for non-Catholics to lend their support for the initiative. The authors expressed encouragement at the positive response from many who felt isolated in their support for Israel.

Lévy and Villeneuve acknowledged the delicacy of the topic, particularly regarding Palestinian Arab Christians, but stressed that genuine solidarity with Palestinian Arabs need not negate recognition of Israel’s covenantal significance. They hope the document will encourage open discussion rather than polarized condemnation.

The deepest theological core

At one point in the conversation, the issue of the delegitimization of Israel as being rejected by God and He punishing them by sending them into perpetual exile came up, as noted in the document. Lévy referred to this as “the deepest theological core of this whole issue.” Because if the delegitimization of Israel is centered on the Jewish people’s exile, that alone emphasizes the truth that undermines the very delegitimization of Israel to begin with: that the Jewish people are indeed indigenous in the Land.

Lévy and Villeneuve invited Catholics and people of goodwill to read and sign the appeal, emphasizing that support for Israel flows from fidelity to Scripture and the best of Catholic tradition.

The full document and signatory information are available through Catholics for Israel and related channels. As the conversation concluded, both Lévy and Villeneuve expressed hope that this initiative represents a turning point, not just in Catholic-Jewish relations, but in the Church’s deeper engagement with the mystery of Israel as rooted in God’s faithful promises.

Watch · Listen · Sign

Watch the full conversation on YouTube

Listen on the Inspiration from Zion podcast

Read and sign the appeal at Catholics for Israel

“You have yartzeit this week,” I was greeted with by the gabbai on Shabbat as I entered the synagogue for morning services with my grandson last week.

Yahrzeit is the annual Jewish memorial day for someone who has passed away, according to the date on the Biblical calendar. In my case, that’s today, for my mother, the 26th of Sivan. Twenty years ago.

The gabbai is the person who helps run the synagogue service and other rituals associated with the services and day to day functioning of the shul.

People who know me know that I don’t like public roles or recognition in general. I do what I have to do for work, but generally resist the spotlight and other forms of self-promotion. I especially don’t like public roles in the synagogue. I know some people thrive on these. I don’t. I don’t know why. I just don’t. I’d rather be left alone in my prayers and contemplation, saying amen to other people’s prayers. Especially related to traditions regarding death and mourning.

It’s been 20 years today since my mother died. I don’t need to say a blessing at the Torah to have her present in my life still, to reflect on the last two weeks of her life, and the relief mixed with grief seeing her take her last breath. She’d never have wanted to live like that. Plagued with lupus most of her adult life, she kept living no matter the challenges. And there were many.

I remember my mother that way. Living. I remember my mother growing into the role of grandmother, and seeing her pride. I remember when we announced that we would be moving to Israel she declared “you’re kidnapping my grandchildren.” That wasn’t rhetoric. She meant it. Sure, it was peppered with a healthy dose of Jewish guilt. But she was heartbroken that she would no longer be 90 minutes away from our (then) five children.

But I also remember at the end of her first visit to us in Israel after we moved, she acknowledged that while she was still upset that we moved here, she could see our children thriving. She was happy for us, and sad still herself.

In the 20 years since she died, we’ve missed her in so many ways I cannot even begin to list them. But she’s missed out too. I feel that.

If she blamed us for kidnapping her children, I wonder if sometimes she’s ever right in God’s face, accusing Him of taking her away from us. Missing all the graduations, military enlistment, marriages (three out of six, so far), and births of her (currently) five great grandchildren. These are just the milestones from my six children. She had six others too, each with unique and justified causes for a grandmother’s pride.

We still have many books from my mother’s house bearing stickers she made, “From Grandma’s Bookshelf.” When I read them to my grandchildren, they know who she is, sort of. They never met her but she’s still present, albeit not present. It’s something she’d have cherished being able to do, and have such joy in seeing me and my children, reading their children her books.

After the gabbai approached me, even though I wished he’d forget and leave me alone, I knew he’d offer me to have an aliyah, saying the blessings over reading the Torah. I would rather be left alone, but I really do admire his determination and doing his job, mostly for those who will be offended by NOT having such an honor.

When he approached me as expected, I pushed back. I asked if I could trade an aliyah for hagbah and gelilah: hagbah for me and gelilah for my seven-year-old grandson who sat next to me.

He kind of looked puzzled at me, but consented.

Hagbah is the ceremonial lifting of the Torah scroll during a synagogue service following the reading of the Torah. We carefully lift the Torah scroll, partly unrolled, high with both hands, turning slowly so everyone can see the handwritten text. Gelilah is the honor of rolling up and dressing the Torah scroll after it has been read and raised.

At the appointed time, my grandson and I approached the Torah. I raised it as high as I could for my mother to see too, to the declaration from the congregation:

וְזֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂם מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי ה’ בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה

“This is the Torah that Moses placed before the Children of Israel, according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses.”

I sat, and while he could not reach the top of the Torah itself, my grandson got assistance to cover the Torah, one of the ways in which we honor the Torah as God’s revealed Word, to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai.

My mother missed his birth and, eight days later becoming part of the covenant between God and the Jewish people, through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. She’s missed the birth of her four other great-grandsons (so far). If she were looking down from high above, or just the balcony behind us, she’d have seen her family continuing to grow, to prosper in Efrat (per the words of the Book of Ruth her Biblical namesake, and coincidently where we live). She’d have seen her first great grandson approach the Torah not as an object, but in service and reverence. She’d have seen his intensity doing something public (which I tend to avoid) as a member of the Jewish community and people, for the first time on his own, with me.

When I think of my mother I still think of myself as a kid. That I had the privilege to bring my grandson to this moment, knowing full well that it was about and because of the yartzeit, is an honor and joy I will cherish for the rest of my life. Without a word, without uttering a blessing, I was blessed, and my mother was honored.

When we visited my mother with her grandchildren, there were always M&Ms for the kids. It’s our family thing, on the yartzeit and her birthday, to remember her with a handful. On someone’s yartzeit the custom is that we do things in memory of the deceased, to elevate their soul. Whether it’s a handful of M&Ms, doing a specific act of kindness, donating charity, or just reading your children, grandchildren or great grandchildren a book, please do something nice in memory of my mother today.

Ruth Feldstein רָחֵל לֵאָה בַּת רְאוּבֵן Rachel Leah bat Reuven