(by Rotem Oreg-Kalisky, founder and director of LIBRAEL; the opinions expressed are his alone; originally published on Ha'aretz ) Let’s begin with a basic assumption: there is no Israel without America - at least not the Israel we want to live in. An Israel with a thriving economy, an advanced security establishment, and a vibrant democracy that enjoys international cooperation and a diplomatic umbrella - all of this would not be possible without the United States. Even in the 1950s, in Ben-Gurion’s 18 Points document, the first prime minister referred to the need for an alliance with a global power. In the decades since, a multifaceted alliance with the U.S. has taken shape, grounded in shared values of democracy, liberty, “unlimited possibilities,” and the Judeo-Christian tradition; shared interests such as ensuring the flow of goods through the Suez Canal, maintaining stable oil prices, and an intelligence, operational, and strategic partnership during the Cold War (and later, during the War on Terror); and the bond between the peoples, based on Israel’s image as “David surrounded by Goliaths,” the cultural and political power of American Jews, and the religious beliefs of evangelical Christians. Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Even in the 1950s he saw need for an alliance with a global power. But this is precisely where the problem lies: the U.S.-Israel alliance was created in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s - in a world that no longer exists, where the interests and values guiding both countries were different. America’s strategic priorities have shifted, and more and more Americans do not see the security value in giving nearly $4 billion each year to a regional power. While Israeli society, scarred by terror attacks and wars, has grown skeptical about peace, American society has lost its finest in Iraq and Afghanistan and has grown skeptical of wars. A whole generation of Americans is coming of age with no memory of 9/11 but with a very clear memory of the War on Terror and its costs. Young Jews, educated through “Israel education” that told them Israel could do no wrong and must always be defended, arrive on college campuses and social media and encounter the less glamorous side of the Israeli story. They feel they were lied to and exploited. Even young evangelicals are proving to be far more liberal than their parents. To all this, we must add the internal polarization within American society - a polarization unrelated to Israel or the conflict - expressed in growing distrust between the parties and their voters. Israel, facing all this, is still offering outdated merchandise from the 1980s: “bipartisanship.” When not flirting with the dangerous gamble that we should invest only in Republicans (there is no worse investment strategy than putting all your money into a single stock), Israel and its leaders - from across the political spectrum - talk about “restoring bipartisanship.” The delusion that we can somehow persuade, for example, Senators Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren - each convinced the other is destroying America - to set aside their differences and unite around Israel is exactly that: a delusion. Senators Tez Cruz (left) and Elizabeth Warren. The delusion we can get them to set aside their differences and unite around Israel is exactly that: a delusion. People used to describe the distribution of political views in society using a Gaussian bell curve: fringe on the right, fringe on the left, and most people scattered somewhere in the center. I want to propose a new thesis, based on things I heard in the offices of senior members of Congress during LIBRAEL ’s recent visit to Washington: today there are two bell curves in the U.S. - a Republican one and a Democratic one. The left edge of the Republican bell curve and the right edge of the Democratic bell curve meet in what we once called “the center,” but it is neither large nor popular. The right fringe of the Republican bell curve openly flirts with fascism and Nazism, and the left fringe of the Democratic bell curve embraces socialism and communism. At both extremes, Zionism is a dirty word, and “global elites” - we all know who that refers to - are the enemy. But within both bell curves there is a critical mass of voters and legislators who cannot be described as “moderates” or “centrists,” yet they are pragmatic. In both cases, this critical mass looks at Israel and says, with some justification, that things need to change. “The partnership with Israel is important,” senior Democratic congressional staff told me, “but we are not going back to October 6.” The Democratic bell curve (left) and the Republican bell curve (right). There is a critical mass in both curves, who cannot be described as “moderates” or “centrists,” yet they are pragmatic. Israel’s leadership must wake up. What good is it that working-level professionals in the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry also see these dangerous trends and the shifting nature of American society, if they have no political or public backing to pursue the steps needed to adjust the partnership - an adjustment essential for preserving and strengthening the alliance? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City and his emergence as a symbol of the Democratic Party, along with the complete normalization of neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes across Republican networks, are alarm bells - warning not about any specific individual, but about a massive iceberg that the ship called “Israel” is heading straight toward. One can only hope that this time, someone will listen. --- If you are liked this article, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

(by Rotem Oreg-Kalisky, founder and director of LIBRAEL; the opinions expressed are his alone) “Why do Israelis love Donald Trump?” I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been asked that by American friends from the Democratic side. While some try to explain it in terms of policy - the pressure on the UN and the ICC, the Abraham Accords, the “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, or the release of hostages - I believe the truth runs deeper than geopolitics. Israelis feel that Trump is on their side emotionally. For a country surrounded by larger, mostly hostile neighbors, and for a people whose trauma is encoded in our cultural DNA, Trump’s popularity in Israel stems not from strategy but from sentiment. President Trump next to the Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana. Trump’s popularity in Israel stems not from strategy but from sentiment. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, is often quoted as publicly disregarding the UN, and Israeli leaders have long thrived on the ethos of “standing against international pressure.” Let’s make it clear: Israelis do not support Trump because of his policies - certainly not his domestic ones. Deep coverage of U.S. domestic issues is scarce in Israel, so most people are not even aware of Trump’s anti-immigration policies or his battles with academia and the media. Among those who do follow U.S. news, their stance usually correlates with their own political perspective: conservative Israelis tend to favor Trump’s policies (as many of them, too, see academia, the media, and the justice system as liberal strongholds), while liberal Israelis usually disapprove of him, often drawing parallels to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies and leadership style. It’s not even about foreign policy. Just as most Americans do not fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of the Iran Nuclear Deal, most Israelis don’t either. Nothing changed in our day-to-day lives because of Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights or his decision to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Even the Abraham Accords, important as they are, did not advance the kind of peace we dreamed of - peace with Israel’s real enemies, not with countries we never fought. That’s why it’s broader than policy. Given Israel’s geography and the Jewish people’s history, Israelis tend to be suspicious of the world. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, is often quoted as publicly disregarding the UN, and Israeli leaders have long thrived on the ethos of “standing against international pressure.” The ability to say “no” to foreign leaders has been Netanyahu’s domestic political advantage for years. This is why the late Ambassador Martin Indyk wrote about President Obama that “he didn’t understand the Israelis either. He gave Israel aid and security cooperation to an extent and depth hitherto unknown in previous administrations… He didn’t understand that the Israelis need sympathy, an embrace.” Former President Biden and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Biden was extremely popular in Israel in the early weeks of the war. A university professor I spoke with recently - a leftist, anti-Netanyahu activist - said, “I am torn between my anger at him for destroying America’s academia and democracy, and my gratitude to him for ending the war and returning the hostages.” Another liberal activist said, “On the one hand, he is destroying his own country; on the other, he saved ours.” On top of that is the trauma of the last two years. The October 7 massacre and the brutal war that followed have shaken Israel’s confidence to its core, with the leadership failures that led to October 7 only making things worse. This is exactly why then-President Biden was extremely popular in the early weeks of the war: within two months, Biden’s approval among Israelis who wanted him reelected rose from 33% to 48%, while Trump - who mocked Israel’s leaders - dropped from 45% to 32%. It was not just about providing military aid or moving aircraft carriers to the region; it was about Biden’s recognition of Israel’s suffering, our pain and trauma, and his clear message that we were not alone. Biden enjoyed so much credibility in Israel that it enabled him to push Netanyahu to revoke the planned strike on Hezbollah on October 11, thus preventing the war from expanding, and to begin providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, against public demands to halt it. Before Biden or Trump, President Bill Clinton was a notable U.S. president who expressed deep empathy for Israelis. In his eulogy for Prime Minister Rabin, Clinton said, “Rabin was my friend and partner. I loved him and adored him.” Clinton’s unapologetic empathy made him widely popular in Israel and enabled him to push Israeli prime ministers - first Rabin, then Netanyahu - to make tough decisions. Much has changed since November 2023. As the war dragged on and the catastrophe in Gaza worsened, Israel lost much of its international support. Israelis began to feel isolated and misunderstood by much of the world, and the spike in antisemitic attacks only reinforced an already common belief that “the world is against us.” Celebrating the release of the hostages. Many Israelis who are politically moderate or even liberal still express ambivalent admiration for Trump. In this climate, Trump’s unapologetic tone offered the validation so many Israelis seek. He doesn’t lecture Israel about morality or demand “restraint.” Even as he pushed to end the war - forcing Netanyahu to do so under terms he had previously opposed - he did it while emphasizing Israel’s needs. Even among those who do not support him, Trump’s symbolic stand with Israel means something. When he calls Hamas “animals,” Israelis hear someone who understands their pain and anger. When Trump repeats that “we must never forget October 7,” it’s not about reminding us - as if any living Israeli could forget - but about addressing the deep concern that “the world has forgotten.” This is crucial: many Israelis who are politically moderate or even liberal still express ambivalent admiration for Trump. Again, it’s not because they endorse his domestic politics or his disregard for norms. It’s because they sense that, when it comes to us, he sees our pain. A university professor I spoke with recently - a leftist, anti-Netanyahu activist - said, “I am torn between my anger at him for destroying America’s academia and democracy, and my gratitude to him for ending the war and returning the hostages.” Another liberal activist said, “On the one hand, he is destroying his own country; on the other, he saved ours.” Of course, such loyalty carries dangers. Unquestioning affection for any foreign leader - especially one as polarizing and unpredictable as Trump - blurs the line between a strategic alliance and personal dependency. Israel’s long-term interests require bipartisan American support, not emotional attachment to one man or one party. But there’s a lesson here: if a foreign leader wants Israelis to trust them - trust that is necessary to make tough decisions - that trust can be earned through symbolic gestures, as long as they feel authentic. --- If you are liked this article, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

(by Adv. Ido Dembin, a board member of LIBRAEL; the opinions expressed are his alone) The No Kings protest movement in the United States and the ongoing pro-democracy protests in Israel both reflect powerful expressions of broad popular discontent with populist governments in their respective countries.   They are designed and motivated by a desire to defend liberal values, institutions, laws, and norms against perceived threats of authoritarianism, erosion of civil rights, and democratic backsliding.  These movements reveal striking parallels as well as important differences, and each offers insights into the evolving global struggle for democratic renewal. A pro-hostage release protest in Israel. The resilience of these movements shows that ordinary citizens remain democracy’s last line of defense. In both countries, the opposition remains scattered, ideologically diverse, and fragmented. In Israel, the opposition is divided between anti-Netanyahu right-wingers, centrists, and left-wingers, with each offering a starkly different vision. The Power of the Masses Both movements are remarkable for their size and resilience, demonstrating crucial civic awakening. While in Israel, the protest movement expanded after October 7, with up to 400,000 people gathering weekly and hundreds of thousands joining nationwide strikes, organizers in the US built vast coalitions, rallying over seven million participants in national days of action. Protests in both countries also involve wide-ranging coalitions, including trade unions, civil rights organizations, and grassroots activists, all empowered by social media and unified by the aspiration to sustain democratic norms under perceived threat. The Israeli pro-democracy movement has been active in various forms since at least 2019, building significant momentum following during 2023. Its persistence underscores deep-rooted democratic anxieties and a highly mobilized civil society. By contrast, the No Kings protests are a more recent phenomenon, first erupting prominently in mid-2025 as a response to President Trump’s policies, and escalating in scale, yet their leadership and structure remain emergent, underscoring the fledgling, experimental nature of this broad coalition. In both the US and Israel, the current governments widely considered as populist, far-right, and of authoritarian inclinations - while in both countries, the opposition remains scattered, ideologically diverse, and fragmented. In Israel, the opposition is divided between anti-Netanyahu right-wingers (most notably, the former Prime Minister Naftali Bennet), centrists, and left-wingers, with each offering a starkly different vision – and all consolidating mostly around the narrow vision of ousting Netanyahu and his far-right, illiberal government. The resilience of these movements - despite fragmentation, controversy, and the limits of protest - shows that ordinary citizens remain democracy’s last line of defense. Ideological, Not Partisan In the US, the “No Kings” protests represent a new phenomenon with no clearly dominant leadership yet, although progressive groups lead the coalition of over 200 organizations alongside centrists. Notably, both protests lack overt backing by clearly partisan organizations. Israeli protests comprise grassroots coalitions cutting across traditional party lines. Likewise, the No Kings movement, while supported by a coalition that includes progressive groups and unions, does not represent a single party or formal political force. This lack of partisan control is not necessarily a bad thing: it allows for a broad-based civic coalition; however, it also contributes to the diffusion of leadership and strategy, complicating the path to concrete political outcomes. That said, politicians such as Yair Lapid (Head of the Israeli parliamentary Opposition) and Yair Golan (who fought on October 7 and now heads the Democrats party) have participated and spoken at various rallies in Israel – and in the US, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and California Governor Gavin Newsom play leading roles in mobilizing opposition to Trump’s moves in their own states, and politicians such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carry the progressive banner. Moreover, both movements have mobilized millions who see their governments as undermining essential democratic principles: In Israel, protesters rally weekly to oppose government overreach, advocate for judicial independence and maintaining the separation of powers, and until recently demand both a hostage deal and an end to the Gaza war, all while affirming the country's founding values of equality and the rule of law. In the US, No Kings protesters accuse President Trump of acting more like a monarch than an elected official, staging huge, peaceful demonstrations in hundreds of cities to vocalize a desire for accountable government and the defense of constitutional rights. Bridges of Activism Despite different political landscapes and points of contention (Trump’s policies and rhetoric in the US versus Israel’s opposition to judicial reform and calls for peace), both movements inspire and draw lessons from each other. Pro-democracy forces in Israel watch the US closely, understanding that American democratic stability influences international attitudes and lends moral support to resistance movements worldwide. Both movements also resonate internationally: “No Kings” protests spilled into twenty foreign countries, and the successes of Israel’s pro-democracy campaign are documented and exhibited worldwide by activist collectives, highlighting the interconnectedness of contemporary struggles for freedom and pluralism. Both movements also strategically employ powerful symbolism to underscore their democratic commitments: Israeli protesters have prominently displayed the Declaration of Independence (as Israel has no written constitution) in mass demonstrations, focusing on its commitment to ensuring “full social and political equality to all its citizens, regardless of religion, race, and sex”. American protesters have paraded with replicas of the Constitution, including huge banners of the U.S. Constitution. These displays emphasize that the struggle is about reclaiming a vision of democracy rooted in foundational texts, rather than merely opposing current administrations. No Kings protesters signing a banner of the U.S. Constitution. These displays emphasize that the struggle is about reclaiming a vision of democracy rooted in foundational texts, rather than merely opposing current administrations. Israeli protesters have prominently displayed the Declaration of Independence in mass demonstrations... ensuring “full social and political equality to all its citizens, regardless of religion, race, and sex”. American protesters have paraded with replicas of the Constitution. The Looming Shadow of the War A significant complication in the No Kings protests is the presence of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli elements, which, while distinct from the core anti-Trump cause, have found space within the broad coalition. This overlap arises partly because many progressive organizations and activists in the US integrate international human rights concerns, including support for Palestinian rights, with their domestic democratic activism – and because the Palestinian agenda has taken hold within the progressive camp not only in and of itself but as a symbol of political alignment. President Trump’s vocal support for Israel and his close personal alliance with Prime Minister Netanyahu definitely add to that. However, for now, these views remain a minority within the overall No Kings coalition. This, in turn, can potentially allow stronger cross-Atlantic cooperation with Israeli pro-democracy forces, which seek to maintain a focus on Israeli democratic reforms rather than conflating the protests with the broader, more contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Israel protest. For now, these views remain a minority within the overall No Kings coalition. A Future for Democracy Both protests reveal democratic societies confronting far-right rule with innovative, grassroots mobilization anchored in a foundational commitment to democracy. Both movements confront fragmented oppositions and overlapping controversies, yet their growing momentum offers a hopeful, if complex, blueprint for renewal. For both, the journey ahead will demand transforming popular will into cohesive political power while navigating both internal divisions and cross-national solidarity challenges. The resilience and creativity of these movements will be pivotal in shaping the future of democracy across the Atlantic and beyond. The resilience of these movements - despite fragmentation, controversy, and the limits of protest - shows that ordinary citizens remain democracy’s last line of defense. Now is the time for those who believe in democratic renewal, on both sides of the Atlantic, to reach across borders, learn from one another’s strategies, and insist that foundational ideals cannot be abandoned to authoritarianism. By joining voices and strengthening ties, advocates for liberty and equality in the US, Israel, and beyond can help usher in a new era where the promise of democracy is not only defended but also reimagined and revitalized for a new generation. --- If you are liked this article, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here. Adv. Ido Dembin is an Israeli political activist. He is the former Executive Director of Molad, an Israeli liberal Zionist think tank. He is also known as a commentator and public intellectual, frequently writing and speaking about Israeli and American politics. Dembin’s work focuses on defending democracy in Israel, analyzing the country’s political shifts, and advocating for civil rights, alongside contemporary commentary on American politics, policy, and society. He has played a significant role in interpreting the Israeli protest movements against judicial reform and in promoting liberal democratic values within Israeli public discourse.​

After almost two horrible years of war, President Donald Trump’s 21-point plan for Gaza has put forth a bold - yet far from perfect - proposal to end the war. That does not mean Israel should say no. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The plan calls for an immediate and complete ceasefire and the release of all remaining hostages within 72 hours of adoption. "Bringing the hostages home alone would relieve an entire nation, resurrecting the Israeli ethos of being a safe haven for Jews - an ethos broken on, and since, October 7." What’s In It Announced yesterday in a press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, following a meeting at the UN General Assembly with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, the plan calls for an immediate and complete ceasefire and the release of all remaining hostages within 72 hours of adoption. Hamas would be disarmed and removed from power. Governance in Gaza would be transferred to a professional technocratic governing board under former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, with deep involvement from a reformed Palestinian Authority. Public safety and Israel’s security would be ensured by an international Arab-and-Muslim stabilization force, and reconstruction would begin with Arab and international funding. For Israel, the most important gain is obvious: bringing the hostages home. That step alone would relieve an entire nation, resurrecting the Israeli ethos of being a safe haven for Jews - an ethos broken on, and since, October 7. On the Palestinian side, ending the war and flooding Gaza with long-overdue aid would stop the humanitarian crisis and save countless lives. In the long term, introducing a governing alternative led by Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims committed to stability is a good step for the Palestinians and the region, as it will allow physical reconstruction to turn Gaza from a permanent source of instability into a source of prosperity. Destruction in Gaza. Governing alternative led by Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims committed to stability is a good step for the Palestinians and the region. "Hamas enjoy at least some support from the population. A feasible long-term plan for the region must ensure that the institutions spreading Hamas’s ideology - including mosques, schools, and the welfare system - are replaced with institutions that promote coexistence." Where Is the Catch There is no such thing as “a perfect deal,” and even though this plan leans toward Israel’s interests - making it harder for Hamas to accept - Israel is still forced to make significant concessions. A major flaw has to do with Hamas remaining a force on the ground - not with fully functioning government or military capabilities, but still operational. Past experiences have shown that third-party forces are not eager to conduct counter-terrorism missions (UNIFIL in Lebanon, where Hezbollah grew into a full-scale military under its nose, is a notable example). The fact that President Trump guaranteed Israel freedom of operation in case of such a failure is positive, but it still falls short of fully addressing Israelis’ legitimate concern that a surviving Hamas will remain committed to harming us. Another flaw, more dangerous in the long run, concerns Gaza’s social reconstruction. Last year, LIBRAEL presented a four-pillar strategy for the day after in Gaza called "The Meatball Sub". While three of those pillars - counterinsurgency efforts, a governing alternative, and physical reconstruction - are met in President Trump’s plan, the social reconstruction element is missing. While it is not true that all Gazans support Hamas, we must acknowledge that Hamas are not outsiders to Gaza; they enjoy at least some support from the population. A feasible long-term plan for the region must ensure that the institutions spreading Hamas’s ideology - including mosques, schools, and the welfare system - are replaced with institutions that promote coexistence. So far, we have not seen anything in this plan that commits to such a move, e.g., dramatically reforming UNRWA. A Meatball Sub. While three of "The Meatball Sub" strategy's pillars - counterinsurgency efforts, a governing alternative, and physical reconstruction - are met in President Trump’s plan, the social reconstruction element is missing. Yet - We Must Say Yes Here is the uncomfortable truth: Israel cannot afford to reject this plan, especially once the United States has planned and promoted it. We’ve reached the point - months ago, in fact - where the war, which has cost us dearly in lives, resources, and international standing, is failing to deliver its legitimate objectives. We cannot dismantle Hamas more than we already have. We clearly cannot rescue the hostages through military operations. International patience for the war is long gone, and more and more political, economic, cultural, and eventually security pressure is being placed on us. Responding with defiance will lead Israel to be more isolated and hence less secure - not more. Israel’s objectives in implementing this plan must be clear: robust verification of disarmament, deep Israeli involvement in international stabilization efforts, clear U.S. guarantees for Israel’s right to self-defense, and an international commitment to social reconstruction. At the same time, it is on us to reject the hardliners who see any compromise as weakness and who believe, despite evidence, that mere military power can protect us. It is on us to enter negotiations in good faith (without compromising on our interests) and leverage this moment to expand peace: with Riyadh, with Islamabad, with Jakarta, and beyond. This is not weakness; it is strategic clarity. This is not conceding to pressure; it is leveraging hard-earned military gains to improve our standing. It will save countless lives - Israeli hostages, Israeli soldiers, and Palestinian civilians - and allow both peoples to start healing. Just as Israel once took risks for peace with Egypt and Jordan, including making severe concessions - risks that paid off with decades of quiet borders - we must again weigh diplomacy. Not with fantasies about peace in our lifetime, but with a clear-eyed, feet-on-the-ground vision that will protect Israel as the democratic, secure, and prosperous nation-state of the Jewish people, while providing the Palestinians with a path to live in freedom and security. The plan is flawed. It is risky. It may fail, as we all wait for Hamas to respond. But there is a reason a huge majority of Israelis, including many who vote for the coalition, support the deal. Israel must not let our fears - cemented in the atrocities of October 7 - hold us back from pursuing a better future for both peoples. Bold diplomacy, not endless war, is what will secure Israel’s future. --- If you are liked this article, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

(by Omer Bialer, an Israeli startup founder; The opinions expressed are his alone) My name is Omer Bialer. I am an Israeli, a Zionist, and a liberal. Growing up in Israel in the 1990s, I believed that we Israelis were the main obstacle to peace. I thought that if we simply gave the Palestinians land of their own, we could begin paving the way toward peace. That was why I supported Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. I believed in the equation "land = peace", and therefore I supported it - even though it was a traumatic experience for many Israelis. I thought the price would be worth paying if it led to peace. Israeli soldiers evacuating Jewish Israelis from Gaza settlements in 2005. Credit: Avigail Uzi. After the October 7th massacre, in which 1,163 people were murdered and 251 kidnapped - outright war crimes committed by Hamas - I was forced to re-examine my understanding of the conflict. How could it be that, nearly 20 years after Israel withdrew from Gaza and allowed the Palestinians to govern themselves, this was the outcome? Why had it not led to the peace I once imagined as a teenager? As Experience Shows, Giving Land Is Not Enough One thing I have come to realize is that achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict is not only about Israel giving up land - it also requires a Palestinians leadership that’s willing to change. It means that their leadership will need to formally recognize Israel’s right to exist, both in words and in action. I understand today that while there were Palestinians who at least publicly accepted the idea of dividing the land, too many of them, including Hamas, still dream of claiming the entire land - “from the river to the sea” - which would mean catastrophe for millions of Israelis. This mindset has blocked multiple potential resolutions that were once on the table: The 1947 UN Partition Plan offered a two-state solution - we agreed, they refused ; The Clinton-Barak-Arafat proposal offered 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and additional territory in a land swap, and again - we agreed, they refused , as President Clinton himself has recently confirmed ; Eventually, we withdrew from Gaza without asking for anything in return. In 2005, Israel handed over the entire Gaza Strip - yet reality showed us that instead of focusing on building their own state, Hamas remained fixated on dismantling ours. President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak, and PA Chairman Arafat. The Blind Spot I Had as a Teenager Is Now the West’s Blind Spot Just as I once failed to recognize the Palestinian leadership’s constant refusal to accept the legitimacy of our state, many people in the West fail to see it as well. There remains a widespread belief, despite mounting evidence showing otherwise, that if only Israel gives up land, the conflict will be solved with a two-state solution. While there is a moral argument for ending Israel’s control over the Palestinians - “occupation corrupts,” as many say - Israelis also know from experience that morality alone does not guarantee security. The fact that ending this control in the West Bank might be moral in principle does not mean it is the right step to take in practice, especially when the alternative is ceding authority to a leadership such as Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, openly supports violence against civilians, carried out the October 7 massacre - and would like to carry it out again. For many Israelis, that makes the step not only uncertain, but profoundly dangerous. This is why I strongly criticize figures like Greta Thunberg. When she chants “From the river to the sea,” she reinforces the belief that compromise is unnecessary and that, if they simply persist, they will one day gain the entire land. When I hear those words, I hear a call to drive me and my family out of our homes, and obviously I cannot accept that. An anti-Israel protest. When I hear those words, I hear a call to drive me and my family out of our homes. Some Might Say I’m Delusional Some people in Israel will say that I’m delusional to believe the Palestinians could ever recognize Israel’s legitimacy to exist, and that any creation of a Palestinian state would, in effect, establish a terror state that would further endanger Israel. I understand that criticism, but I view it differently. Rather than assuming the Palestinians will never change and therefore not expecting any change from their society and leadership, I want to give them the opportunity and responsibility to prove that they can change. I see the Palestinians as human beings with responsibility and agency, and I expect them to act on it. My aim is to create a new equation, based on mutual recognition. An equation that does not say, “you will never get a state under any circumstances,” but instead says, “if you acknowledge our country’s right to exist, we will acknowledge yours.” A Fair Solution is in Our Own Interest A recent UN General Assembly vote on implementing a two-state solution was supported by 142 states, rejected by 10, and saw 12 abstentions. This leads me to believe that time is running out. If we do not clearly state our conditions - derived from our security concerns and the lessons we learned the hard way - for the establishment of a Palestinian state, we may find ourselves with one being imposed upon us, without any Palestinian recognition of our legitimacy in return. "Two peoples living on this land, and neither is going to magically disappear. Peace will not come simply because Israel gives up land." I used to think that finding a fair solution to the conflict was simply “the right thing to do.” Today, I believe it is in our own security interest to do so - if we want to repair our global reputation, preserve our Western alliances, maintain the Abraham Accords with our existing partners, and potentially build new ones - on top of the moral imperative of us as liberals, to pursue peace and justice. The conditions toward a sustainable solution I believe that a safe and peaceful future for both peoples depends on clear conditions being met by each side. For the Palestinians: Release all hostages. There are still 48 hostages being held in Gaza by Hamas, for over 700 days. Their freedom must be the first step. Formally acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. A public acknowledgment that Israel, as a democratic nation-state for the Jewish people, is a legitimate country with a right to exist is essential. Renounce all acts of terror. This means dismantling the PLO mechanism that finances terrorists who have killed Israelis, ending all incentives for terror attacks, and publicly denouncing such attacks. Dismantle Hamas. Hamas must relinquish its weapons and its rule over Gaza. A new leadership must be rebuilt - one capable of meeting these conditions - since we know by now that Hamas will never recognize Israel in any form. This is a complex requirement, because Hamas refuses to give up its weapons or control in Gaza, which means dismantling it might not be possible without war. Social reconstruction. Far too many institutions in the Palestinian society, including schools and mosques, are used to fuel hatred against Israelis and Jews; such institutions must be either replaced or significantly changed so that they promote coexistence. On our end, here are several imperatives that we must uphold: Vocally support a two-state solution, provided the above conditions are met. The Israeli government should state clearly that if and only if these conditions are fulfilled, Israel is open to a two-state solution. Meeting these conditions is critical, because without them, simply giving land will never be sufficient to end the conflict. Join the global discourse on the two-state solution and make the above conditions part of it. It is important to ensure the world will know that Israel also seeks to resolve the conflict - but only in a way that does not jeopardize its own safety. The international community must recognize that simply giving land will not be enough to end the conflict; certain conditions must also be met on the Palestinian side. Address objections at home. The public must be engaged in an honest discussion about the consequences of rejecting a two-state solution under any circumstances. This includes the potential impact on our alliances with the West, the future of the Abraham Accords, and our relationship with the United States. We must also recognize that we are losing the support of younger generations in the West - and will continue to lose them if we do not pursue a fair solution. In addition, arms deals and our long-term military strength could be jeopardized if Israel is left without meaningful alliances. All of these factors are at stake, and the Israeli public should be fully aware of them when considering a path forward. So to sum up: I do believe a peaceful future is possible, but I am no longer naive about the steps required to achieve it. To move toward that future, we must first acknowledge reality: there are two peoples living on this land, and neither is going to magically disappear. Peace will not come simply because Israel gives up land. The world must also recognize that it is equally the Palestinians’ responsibility to develop leadership that accepts Israel’s presence here and to abandon the idea of a single state “from the river to the sea.” As a first step toward that future, the world must understand this - just as we Israelis must understand it ourselves.

Although elections for the Knesset are not scheduled until October 2026, it currently seems that all political players in Israel (including coalition parties) understand that the current Knesset and government are unlikely to complete a full four-year term, and that early elections may only be a matter of time. This has led all parties currently represented in the Knesset to begin preparing for the upcoming election campaign. As a result, we are seeing parties in Israel, especially within the opposition bloc, reorganizing themselves. This is evident in the creation of the new “Democrats” party, a merger of the two left-wing parties Labor and Meretz, under the leadership of Yair Golan - a fierce critic of Netanyahu, former IDF Deputy Chief of General Staff who, on October 7, rushed to the Gaza border to rescue civilians. Yair Golan. Fierce critic of Netanyahu, rushed to the Gaza border to rescue civilians. At the same time, new parties are emerging and planning to run in the next elections. These could significantly impact the results and serve as kingmakers in determining who will form the next government. It is important to note that most of these parties identify with the anti-Netanyahu opposition bloc. However unlike the current coalition, which is relatively homogenous politically, the Israeli opposition includes center-right, centrist, and left-wing parties, united primarily by their opposition to Netanyahu and his government. In addition, each party leader in the anti-Netanyahu bloc sees themselves as a potential prime minister, making it difficult for the bloc to unite around a single candidate - even though Israeli elections are for parties rather than directly for the premiership. The new party expected to run in the upcoming elections and likely to be the most influential among them is a center-right party led by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. According to all current polls, Bennett is the only opposition candidate capable of winning more seats than Netanyahu’s Likud, making him the most realistic challenger to replace Netanyahu if he can form a government with opposition parties. However, given his right-wing ideology and his statements that he will not rely on Arab parties, it is possible that he could push for a unity government involving Netanyahu (and perhaps some of his allies) alongside elements of the anti-Netanyahu bloc. Naftali Bennett. The most realistic challenger to replace Netanyahu, but may form a coalition with him. Another major player in the upcoming elections is former IDF Chief of General Staff and MK Gadi Eisenkot, who this week (September 16) announced the formation of a new party Yashar! ("Forward"), that includes well-known figures from both the right and the left, though he has not yet presented a clear political platform. Unlike fellow former-general-turned-centrist-politician Benny Gantz, Eisenkot has made it clear that he will not sit in a government with Netanyahu. He is also considered a relatively reliable and likable leader, partly due to his personal tragedy: his son Gal was killed in Gaza while on a hostage-rescue mission. Until a few months ago, Eisenkot was part of Gantz’s National Unity Party, but after disagreements between them, he resigned from the Knesset. Nevertheless, Eisenkot has not ruled out joining forces with other opposition parties and is actively pushing for alliances so that the opposition enters the elections with only three or four parties, thereby minimizing wasted votes. A merger between Eisenkot and parties such as Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, or Bennett’s new party is entirely plausible. Gadi Eisenkot. Has not ruled out joining forces with other opposition parties. Beyond Bennett and Eisenkot, other figures are also establishing new parties. Although their chances of entering the Knesset in the upcoming elections are not particularly high, they could still influence the distribution of votes among the larger parties and thereby affect the final outcome. The first is Yoaz Hendel, who served as communications minister in the Bennett-Lapid government. Hendel is currently working to establish a party representing IDF reservists that would advocate for their interests, including a controversial demand to revoke voting rights from citizens who do not serve - a measure primarily aimed at reducing ultra-Orthodox influence in government. The “Reservists’ Party” is likely to lean to the right politically, though it is unclear whether it would agree to join a right-wing government that includes ultra-Orthodox parties, or with left-leaning parties like the Democrats. Another figure is former Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen, who announced his candidacy in the upcoming elections with a new center-right party. Although Cohen currently presents himself as an alternative to Likud, his close ties to Netanyahu and his long-standing association with Likud - where he was once considered Netanyahu’s potential successor - have led many Israelis to suspect that Cohen’s new party is essentially a Likud satellite. Some in the protest movement even refer to him as “Yossi Proxy,” believing the party is designed to prevent disillusioned coalition voters from drifting away. The last figure worth focusing on is Yonatan Shamriz, brother of the fallen hostage Alon Shamriz, who was killed in Gaza. Shamriz founded the movement “Kumu” (“Wake Up”), which presents itself as a movement for cultivating new leadership after October 7. Since then, it has been very active in protesting against the government, organizing an alternative ceremony to mark October 7, and campaigning for the return of the hostages. Although Shamriz has not officially announced a run for the Knesset, it very likely he will. Even if he decides to run, it is unclear whether he will establish a new party or join an existing one. After reviewing these players, who could prove decisive in the outcome of the upcoming elections, it is important to note that the proliferation of parties in the opposition bloc could be disastrous. Some of these parties may fail to cross the electoral threshold, thereby “wasting” opposition votes - as happened with Meretz in the previous elections.

Dear friends, Violence is never acceptable. The murder of Charlie Kirk is another dangerous milestone and a warning sign for us all about the risks of political violence. No matter one’s politics, the loss of life in such a violent way leaves a wound in society that should trouble us all. As someone who also faces attacks for his social and political activism, this meets me personally. On behalf of LIBRAEL 's board of directors, team, and the entire LIBRAEL community, our hearts go out to Mr. Kirk's family and loved ones as they endure unimaginable pain. Kirk dedicated himself to a mission he believed in - a seemingly impossible mission. At LIBRAEL, our mission is extremely different, but the challenge feels familiar. At LIBRAEL, our mission is extremely different, but the challenge feels familiar. First and foremost, let us be clear: this murder is appalling and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We’ve seen too much political violence in recent years - against President Trump, Speaker Pelosi, Governor Shapiro, Governor Whitmer, the late State Rep. Hortman, and many more. We’ve also seen political violence in Israel. This has to stop now. As a liberal, I disagreed with many of Mr. Kirk's views, but that only makes this moment more outrageous. Violence has no place in democratic life. It cannot replace debate, it cannot replace persuasion, and it certainly cannot replace the ballot box. The very reason we have democratic systems, in Israel and in the U.S., is to enable different groups in society to manage our differences without resorting to violence. As New York Times’ Ezra Klein wrote: “Kirk... was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him... When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did.” Kirk dedicated himself to a mission he believed in - a seemingly impossible mission. At LIBRAEL, our mission is extremely different, but the challenge feels familiar. We, too, seek to engage young people - particularly on the American left - with difficult conversations, to connect them to Israel’s story, and to do so through respectful dialogue, not division; through building bridges, not “lecturing” or finger-pointing. If there is one thing we, liberal Zionists who work to reconnect Israel and the American left, should learn from Kirk's life - even as we disagreed with him - is his conviction and dedication. This tragic moment reminds us of the urgency of civility. We must remain committed to listening, to disagreeing without hatred, and to preserving democracy as the sacred arena where our differences are resolved through words, not weapons. Am Yisrael Chai. God Bless America. Rotem Oreg-Kalisky Founder and Director, LIBRAEL

Anti-war, pro-Hostage deal protest. Organizers estimate that up to half a million people (5% of the Israeli population) participated in the largest demonstrations since the Gaza war began in October 2023. On Sunday, August 17, 2025, hundreds of thousands of Israelis filled the streets in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, and cities across the country. Organizers estimate that up to half a million people (5% of the Israeli population) participated in the largest demonstrations since the Gaza war began in October 2023. Hostages Square in Tel Aviv alone drew at least 200,000 by nightfall. Protesters are demanding that the government put human life and the commitment to its civilians first, recognizing the fact that the military campaign has exhausted itself months ago and further pressure would not lead to the eradication of Hamas. What Happened? The nationwide strike and protests were led by the October Council and the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, despite not being supported by the Histadrut (Israel’s largest labor union). They began at 6:29 a.m. - the exact moment Hamas launched its brutal attack on October 7, 2023. Demonstrators all across society blocked highways, marched in solidarity, and gathered at exhibitions and rallies. Doctors, students, farmers, and everyday Israelis joined together in an extraordinary show of unity and resilience, so contrary to the government who tried to minimize the scope of the protests or to label them as supportive to Hamas. Even a missile attack from Yemen did not cause protesters to fall back. The Call for a Hostage Deal The demand is clear: ending the war with a deal that will bring home the remaining 50 hostages - of whom only about 20 are believed alive. Protesters voiced outrage at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to fully occupy Gaza City, a move that families of hostages as well as the military leadership warn would further endanger lives - Israeli and Palestinian alike - would fail to achieve any strategic objective, and deepen the cycle of violence. Israelis are aware to the costs and are ready to pay the price of releasing Hamas fighters (including those who participated in the October 7 Massacre) and withdrawing from Gaza. Israelis are not united behind an endless war. More and more Israelis understand that a continued fighting would not remove Hamas. Why It Matters The protests erupted just days after Netanyahu announced his intention to seize Gaza City - an act condemned by key allies like the UK, France, and Germany. At the same time, rumors of renewed ceasefire negotiations are circulating, especially in light of the reports that MK Benny Gantz is considering rejoining the government to support a hostage deal. Protesters are demanding that the government put human life and the commitment to its civilians first, recognizing the fact that the military campaign has exhausted itself months ago and further pressure would not lead to the eradication of Hamas. Civil society leaders, artists, and former hostages joined families of hostages in calling for an end to the war and for a hostage release deal, calling on president Trump to use his leverage on Netanyahu. Their voices represent the growing majority of Israelis who refuse to accept endless war as the country’s destiny, and. Our Take These protests remind us: Israelis are not united behind an endless war. The struggle for the hostages is alive in the streets, with more and more Israelis who understand that a continued fighting would not remove Hamas, and who are willing to fight for a better future. We will continue to lift up these voices of hope, and to ensure that America hears them. As always, we are here to answer your questions and serve as a resource. The LIBRAEL Team

While the war in Gaza isn't over yet, it is imperative to think beyond ceasefires and short-term needs, including the release of 101 Israeli hostages and providing humanitarian aid.   In order to make sure this is the last war between Israel and the Palestinians, which in turn could lead to a more constructive, peace-building path, what Gaza needs is a comprehensive, multi-faceted plan to address its security, political, humanitarian, and social challenges - a strategy that not only ends cycles of violence but removes their root causes and plants seeds for lasting coexistence, and eventually peace. Enter the "Meatball Sub" strategy: a vision that combines immediate stabilization efforts with long-term reconstruction and partnerships on regional and global scales. The Four Pillars: The Meatballs At the core of this strategy are four interconnected pillars, each crucial to transforming Gaza from a hotspot of tragedy, violence, and despair into a beacon for hope: Counter-Insurgency Operations : Dismantling the remnants of Hamas and its militant infrastructure is the first step. This involves targeted, chirurgical operations to neutralize threats while minimizing harm to civilians. The goal is to eliminate Hamas’s military capabilities and ideological influence, ensuring Gaza does not remain a launchpad for violence against Israelis. Rellying on special operations units alone, and not on a permanent IDF “boots on the ground” presence, will also protect Israeli lives and make sure Israel can direct its military resources into other fronts, while also preventing Israeli civilians from re-settling Gaza, which would put them, the soldiers protecting them, and the entire strategy at risk. A Governing Alternative : The collapse of Hamas must be met with the rise of an effective and humane governance structure, probably relying on a reformed Palestinian Authority (and strict reforms must be applied on it, given its curroption, ineffectiveness, and unpopularity). This interim administration would focus on providing basic services such as healthcare, education, and utilities, restoring dignity to the lives of Gazans and signaling a break from the corruption and violence of the past. Physical Reconstruction : Over a year of war left Gaza in ruins. Rebuilding homes, schools, hospitals, and transportation infrastructure is essential to restoring normalcy and laying the groundwork for a functional society and economy. This effort must be guided by transparency and accountability to prevent resources from falling into the wrong hands, and should relly on a combination of multinational organizations, state actors, and private sector investors. Social Reconstruction : Perhaps the most challenging pillar, this involves rebuilding institutions within Palestinian society to foster coexistence rather than division. Education reform (similar to the reforms executed in the UAE regarding Israel) and preachers and religious scholars training, leading to the replacement of incitement with messaging of peace and opportunity are essential to creating a future where another violent group like Hamas cannot reemerge because it will not find an ideological ground to grow on. The Bread: Two Layers of International Support A "meatball sub" isn’t complete without its bread, and this strategy is no different. The success of these four pillars hinges on two layers of external cooperation: A Regional Security Alliance : Israel cannot achieve these goals alone. A coalition that includes Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and a renewed Palestinian Authority would bring collective expertise, resources, and legitimacy to the table, including security cooperation on other fronts (especially Iran). This alliance would ensure that Gaza’s borders are secure, arms smuggling is stopped, and regional stability is prioritized. A Global Democracy Alliance : Beyond the region, Gaza’s reconstruction and Israel’s global positioning must be bolstered by a broader coalition of democratic powers. The frontline democracies - Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and South Korea - understand the existential threats posed by authoritarianism, given their conflicts with Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea (respectively). With the support of Western organizations like NATO and the Quad, this alliance could provide geopolitical support, technical expertise, and diplomatic backing to ensure Gaza’s transformation aligns with universal values of freedom and human rights. A Vision for the Future The "Meatball Sub" is not just a plan; it is a vision for what Israel and Gaza - and the region at large - could become. It acknowledges the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while refusing to accept the status quo of endless war or to “hide” behind simplistic deflections (“it’s complicated”). It definitely does not allow extremists, on both sides, to take advantage of the tragedy of October 7 and the war that follows it, to their own messianic agendas. By combining tactical operations, humanitarian governance, physical and social rebuilding, and robust international alliances, this strategy offers a roadmap for stability that is as pragmatic as it is ambitious, while addressing the legitimate concerns of all parties involved. This is not a quick fix, nor will it be easy. It sure does not solve all of the region’s challenges. But the alternative - endless cycles of violence, suffering, and instability - is far worse. The time to act is now, with a clear-eyed commitment to breaking the mold and building a future where Gaza is no longer a symbol of despair but a beacon of possibility.

This article was written by Oz Bin Nun , head of LIBRAEL's content team. The opinions expressed are his alone. Anti-Israel protest. If claiming that Israel is a colonial enterprise was true, then like other colonial powers it would have collapsed. Anti-Israel chants - like "From the river to the sea" or accusations that Israel is a colonialist project - are not only historically inaccurate; they are also deadly and counterproductive. In a brilliant piece in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg explores Hamas’s leader Yahya Sinwar's critical miscalculation that led to the collapse of Iran's anti-Israel coalition after October 7. Sinwar was caught up in his own propaganda - he believed his own rhetoric that Israelis see themselves as foreigners who do not truly belong in their own state. His logic was straightforward: hit them hard enough and they will collapse. "Sinwar believed his own rhetoric, that Israelis see themselves as foreigners... His logic was straightforward: hit them hard enough and they will collapse." The outcome of that miscalculation is painfully clear: the war Sinwar ignited did not cause Israel to collapse. On the other hand, the Gaza Strip lies in devastation. Hezbollah - under the leadership of Hassan Nasrallah, who also believed Israel is a fragile society - is weakened to an extreme degree. Iran itself has suffered devastating strikes at the hands of the IDF and the Mossad. But the lesson we must draw goes beyond Sinwar and Nasrallah. It extends to the far-left rhetoric surrounding Israel. For years, this rhetoric has insisted on the same thing Sinwar thought: that Israel is a settler-colonial state built by European immigrants and therefore uniquely fragile and reversible. You see this belief in chants at anti-Israel protests - slogans labeling Israelis as white colonizers and calling for their removal, as if they were French colonists in Algeria or British soldiers in North America. The perception, as Adam Kirsch describes, is that Israel is a colonial project that can simply be undone. "Labeling Israelis as white colonizers and calling for their removal, as if they were French colonists in Algeria or British soldiers in North America." Yet this view is profoundly flawed. It ignores the diverse reality of Israeli society - a nation where more than half of the Jewish population hails not from Europe but from the Middle East and North Africa. It ignores that most Israelis feel deeply rooted in their homeland, every bit as indigenous to this region as anyone else - including the Palestinians. And it adopts a false historical parallel - hoping that, like the FLN against the French, violence will cause Israelis to give up and leave. Truth is an aptness between what one says about something and the thing itself. If one says that the sun is hot and the sun is hot, that is the truth. Applying this standard, if anti-Israel chants truly reflected reality - if Israelis were merely fragile colonizers with no genuine connection to the land - then continuous violent attacks would eventually break them. As that is not the case, and in fact the October 7 attacks increased the levels of patriotism among Israelis (including Arab Israelis), it is proof that these beliefs do not match the reality on the ground, then those chants are false. "Anti-Israel myths do not reflect a fragile settler colony, because in reality Israel is a robust, stable society, ties to its land and identity, that grows more resolute under attack." In William James’s pragmatism, the value of an idea is measured by its practical effects - by how it shapes behavior and how the world responds. Seen through this lens, we recognize that Israeli society acts as an anti-colonial, deeply rooted community with profound ties to its land and identity (just check the lyrics of the Israeli anthem). If we imagine a spectrum with fragile societies on one end - easily shattered by pressure - and robust, stable societies on the other - societies that grow stronger by challenge - it's evident that after 21 months of intense war, Israel belongs on the robust and stable end. In this pragmatic sense, anti-Israel myths do not reflect a fragile settler colony, because in reality Israel is a robust, stable society that grows more resolute under attack. This is not just a philosophical debate. If it is false to assume that Israelis will collapse like colonial powers of the past, then the only logical response is to abandon this fantasy and find other ways, peaceful ways, to resolve the conflict. Like the United States, where nobody seriously expects returning Turtle Island to Indigenous tribes by expelling the entire settler-descended population, it is impossible and dangerous to pretend that Israel can simply be reversed. A Jewish and a Muslim soldiers pray. Israel is not a fragile society, but grows more resolute under attack, and level of patriotism spiked after October 7 among Jews and Arabs alike. Recognizing that these Anti-Israel chants are not effective is not merely an intellectual exercise; it is a moral imperative. Twenty-one months into an intense and devastating war, this out-of-touch fantasy that Israel can simply be wished away is only fueling more suffering. Understanding that these myths do not align with reality is the first step toward preventing further bloodshed and moving toward genuine solutions that provide a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Destroyed homes in Rishon Letzion, Israel, after an Iranian-fired ballistic missile hit it. Dear friends and supporters, One week ago, Israel entered into an open, direct war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not just another round of escalation. It is a pivotal moment - long feared, now real. And it demands strategic honesty and moral clarity. At LIBRAEL, we are committed to pursuing peace, practicing diplomacy, and protecting liberal values. We are also committed to Israeli interests - first and foremost, its right to defend itself when faced with existential threats. That is why we support this war. As we are committed to transparency, we wanted to elaborate on our stance. We encourage to use our answers if you find them helpful in your day-to-day conversations on this issue. We also encourage you to reach to us by email or social media if you want to hear more. 1. Why did the war start now? The Israeli intelligence community has reached the conclusion that we’ve arrived at a “now or never” moment vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear program. Unless Israel acts now, Iran will, within a matter of days, enrich enough uranium to weapons-grade levels - sufficient for one nuclear bomb. While it is uncertain whether Iran currently has the capability to turn this enriched uranium into a functioning nuclear warhead, Israel believes it cannot afford to take that risk. 2. Why do we believe this war is not politically motivated? Some accuse the Israeli government of launching this war to distract from domestic troubles, from the "draft law" to the failure to safely return the hostages in Gaza. All elected officials make political calculations when making decisions, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is no exception, yet we reject the claim that this war is solely the result of one person’s political needs. The security and intelligence communities are unanimous regarding the need to act (a level of agreement never before seen on this issue). Israel’s opposition leaders, who are not shy about criticizing the government on other issues, especially Gaza, support as well. Those serve as proof that this is not about internal politics - it’s about national security. 3. Why do we support the war? Wars are frightening, painful, and dangerous. Dozens of Israelis and hundreds of Iranians have already been killed, and both countries are suffering enormously. This war is not a war of choice, as Israel already has enough conflicts on its plate, and it is definitely not about revenge. It is about degrading Iran’s offensive capabilities and preventing a nuclear threat on Israel and the region. 4. What does a desirable outcome look like? Let us be clear: a desirable outcome is not endless war. While some call for regime change, we know from history - particularly the war in Iraq - that such outcome can be risky and unpredictable. We all agree that a pro-west, liberal, democratic Iranian government would benefit the entire region (especially the Iranian people), but we must recognize that this is not the only end-state possible. Instead, a more realistic goal is a reality in which Iran is no longer an existential threat but merely a regional nuisance. If Iran is deprived of its nuclear infrastructure, its ballistic missiles, and its regional proxy network, its threat to Israel and the region will be significantly weakened. LIBRAEL will support any diplomatic agreement that can ensure these objectives. 5. Why do we want the United States to stay out of the war? American support matters, and we are grateful for it, but Israel has never asked others to defend it - and we’re not about to ask now. U.S. military involvement will put American personnel in harm's way, drag the U.S. into an avoidable war, and cement the antisemitic trope that Israel dictates U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. is our key ally, and we ask its support in terms of equipment, air-defense, and diplomacy, particularly enabling Israel to destroy the enrichment facility in Fordow - but we don't ask it to fight directly. 6. How do our liberal values apply during wartime? Even in war, liberal values matter. We call on the Israeli government to uphold the rule of law, to do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and to differentiate between the regime and the freedom-loving Iranian people. Liberalism also means standing up to authoritarian aggression. Iran’s regime represses its own people and threatens its neighbors. Turning a blind eye to its oppressive behavior would be a betrayal of our values. 7. What kind of peace are we fighting for? Not a naïve peace - but a durable one. One in which Israelis no longer live under the threat of Iranian missiles or a nuclear weapon, and where the Iranian people - like others in the region - can one day live free of dictatorship, oppression, and war. We hope that day comes sooner rather than later. At the same time, we do not delude ourselves into thinking that removing the Iranian threat will create a perfect Middle East. We remain in conflict with our Palestinian neighbors. There is a terrible human tragedy unfolding in Gaza, where Hamas is still in power, and 53 Israelis are still held hostage by it. We will not know true peace until we fulfill our liberal Zionist vision: Israel as a secure, prosperous, democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, and Palestinians living in liberty, security, opportunity, and dignity. We still believe in that future.

The sites attacked across Iran. Israel attacked military sites and leadership, nuclear infrastructure, missiles and aerial defense systems. Source: New York Times. What Happened On June 13th, at approximately 3:00 AM local time, Israel launched a large-scale military operation (Operation A Rising Lion), targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, missile capabilities, and high-ranking officials. IDF Chief of General Staff LTG Eyal Zamir, stated that we’ve reached a “push comes to shove” moment. The operation conducted multi-wave airstrikes on roughly 100 targets across Iran, including Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, ballistic missile production sites, Russian-made aerial defense batteries, and military bases housing senior commanders. These attacks were enabled due to a Mossad-activated secret drone base inside Iran, launching explosive drones to target ballistic missile launchers near Tehran. In response, Iran launched over 100 drones toward Israel, though no ballistic missiles were reported at the time. Israel declared a nationwide state of emergency, activated warning sirens, and neutralized most incoming drones by noon (local time). In the week since the war started around 30 Israelis and over 200 Iranian were killed. U.S. President Donald Trump now has a stronger negotiation position: he can offer Iran to force Israel to end the strikes in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program. Why: Context of the Strikes in Iran It is unclear whether these strikes will entirely dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, but Israeli leaders, such as IDF Chief of General Staff LTG Eyal Zamir, stated that we’ve reached a “push comes to shove” moment. Intelligence assessments from February 2025 indicated that Israel saw a narrowing window to halt Iran’s nuclear program due to Iran’s efforts to replenish its aerial defense capabilities after most were destroyed by Israel in October 2024. The timing of the strikes coincides with stalled U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, which were set to resume in Oman on June 15, 2025. The U.S., under President Donald Trump, had been negotiating a new nuclear deal, offering sanctions relief in exchange for Iran halting uranium enrichment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, skeptical of diplomacy’s ability to prevent the nuclearization of Iran, was aiming to derail these talks, pushing a humiliated and vulnerable Iran into a harder stance. Iran’s subsequent announcement that it would not participate in the scheduled talks suggests Israel’s strategy may have succeeded, at least in the short term; on the other hand, U.S. President Donald Trump now has a stronger negotiation position: he can offer Iran to force Israel to end the strikes in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program. Within Israel, the decision to strike reflects not just strategic but also political imperatives: Netanyahu, facing an ongoing corruption trial and domestic unrest due to his failure to bring back the 53 hostages held in Gaza and his responsibility to the October 7 Massacre, has now fulfilled his decades-long aspiration to strike Iran, trying to reposition himself as the “protector of Israel.” He hopes that the strikes will improve his image, especially in light of damaging polls and the probability of elections in early 2026. What’s Next: Things to Watch in the Coming Days The Israeli strikes on Iran mark a pivotal moment in the Middle East, and several factors - Iran’s response (especially if they attack U.S. assets or forces), the Trump administration’s approach, the public dynamics in Israel, and the global energy markets - will determine its results. The one major factor that will determine the dynamic of the coming days is the BDA (Bombing Damage Assessment) - the more damage done to Iran’s military capabilities, the better Israel’s and the U.S.’s position to leverage the military achievements into diplomatic ones. At the same time, it is crucial to remember that Israel is still engaged in an equally important fight in Gaza: to remove Hamas from power, which still poses a deadly threat to Israelis and stands in the way of peace in the region, and to bring back 53 Israeli hostages who are held by Hamas in inhumane conditions for 623 days.