Strip away the legal hair-splitting about whether Qatar qualifies as an enemy state. In practical terms, Qatar is an adversary. From a moral standpoint, working for Doha during wartime constitutes betrayal. Severe betrayal, given that Qatar bankrolls Hamas' military operations, funds the global anti-Israel propaganda campaign, and operates the Al Jazeera disinformation empire that demonizes the Jewish state.

One might charitably explain why some Israelis cooperated with Qatar before October 7. Israel itself greenlit the infamous cash-stuffed suitcases flowing into Gaza, deliberately ignoring that much of the money fueled Hamas' terrorist infrastructure. Not everyone looked away. Shin Bet officials warned repeatedly that Israel should eliminate Yahya Sinwar and his cohorts. But Benjamin Netanyahu preferred the illusion of calm, dismissing concerns as a "calculated risk" (a phrase Hamas' leader mockingly threw back at him in a personal note).

But accepting even one Qatari riyal after October 7? That crosses into betrayal. When this collaboration emanates from the Prime Minister's Office – Israel's inner sanctum – the breach becomes exponentially worse. Three reasons make that office sacred: First, everyone working there serves only Israel's interests. Second, their sole mission is to advance the nation's security. Third, they fight enemies rather than serving them.

Netanyahu and his defenders insist that Eli Feldstein, the prime minister's former spokesman for military affairs, never formally worked in the office. Anyone who dealt with Feldstein knows better. Here's an episode worth sharing now. On a Saturday night in early 2024, while driving with one of my children, Feldstein called. We'd known each other for years, since his days as IDF spokesperson and later as the spokesman for the Judea and Samaria Division. I'd always appreciated his unconventional background – an ultra-Orthodox man who enlisted, loved military service, and possessed natural charisma.

We hadn't spoken much since his brief stint as Itamar Ben-Gvir's spokesperson at the Public Security Ministry. I'd objected then to his lending credibility to a serial offender bent on dismantling the police. Fortunately, Feldstein left Ben-Gvir shortly after.

That Saturday night conversation lasted only minutes. After exchanging pleasantries, he pitched an obviously fabricated story smearing Egypt. I declined to participate and suggested we end the call amicably. At the time, I couldn't fathom why the prime minister's military spokesperson would attack Egypt. The possibility that he was acting on Qatar's behalf never occurred to me.

Egypt deserves its own discussion. Among all the betrayals, undermining Israel-Egypt relations ranks near the top. This cabal actually jeopardized peace with Egypt – one of Israel's most vital strategic assets, alongside the US alliance and technological dominance. That the Arab world's largest, most populous nation with its most powerful military has maintained peace with Israel for 46 years represents a geopolitical triumph. Yes, it's cold peace. Cold peace is far preferable to armed conflict.

The disinformation campaign run from the Prime Minister's Office sought to invert reality, casting Qatar as peacemaker and Egypt as warmonger. The lies included claims that Egypt violated the peace treaty by massing troops in Sinai, that Egyptian intelligence officials skimmed money from Hamas funding, that Cairo knew about October 7 in advance and conspired in Israel's deception, and that Egypt sabotaged hostage negotiations. Every accusation was false. Unfortunately, some journalists amplified them.

A word about journalism. Reporters thrive on leaks and should encourage sources to come forward. Journalists also rely on information from political offices, all of which have agendas. A reporter can assess motives, but the only test that matters is whether a story is significant and accurate. The fabrications peddled by the Qatar network inside the Prime Minister's Office were certainly sensational. They failed the truth test. A single call to mid-level or senior security officials would have exposed them as fiction.

Betrayal (2)

Every nation dreams of penetrating its adversary's leadership circle with operatives. The Mossad has invested enormous resources toward this goal over decades, succeeding only occasionally. So have premier Western and Eastern intelligence services. Qatar infiltrated Netanyahu's office effortlessly, and on the cheap.

Since October 7, the Shin Bet has uncovered more than 60 instances of Israeli citizens recruited to spy for Iran. No reasonable person considers it acceptable that Israelis assist Iranian intelligence operations, much less violent actions. Everyone recognizes this as betrayal – aiding the enemy during wartime. Yet many minimize Qatargate's severity. Most troubling are public officials (cabinet members, ministers, Knesset members) whose fear of Netanyahu trumps both common sense and their obligations to citizens and national security.

Imagine the uproar if this betrayal had occurred under former prime ministers Naftali Bennett or Yair Lapid. Critics would demand not only prosecuting those who took Qatari payments but also investigating the prime minister for employing advisors who turned double agents and for failing to supervise his own staff. Two scenarios exist: Either Netanyahu knew and approved, making him complicit, or he didn't know, making him negligent. His silence suggests he's hiding something or fears establishing a narrative that will later prove false.

Let's go back to Iranian espionage. Shin Bet and police are struggling to understand why so many Israelis betrayed their homeland. Initial assumptions focused on marginalized citizens – recent immigrants without family ties or military service, whose connection to Israel remained weak. As cases multiplied, that theory collapsed. Iran recruited across demographics: young and old, wealthy and struggling, urban and peripheral, religious and secular, native-born and immigrants, Mizrahi and Ashkenazi. Dozens of Israelis worked for Tehran in exchange for money.

Israel was long considered nearly impossible to penetrate with spies. Unlike neighboring states, Israel's social cohesion remained strong, built on the collective understanding that interdependence ensured survival. Historically, Israeli traitors fell into two categories: foreign-trained operatives planted in Israel (Marcus Klingberg being the most notorious) and ideologically motivated betrayers (Udi Adiv, Mordechai Vanunu).

Today's phenomenon differs fundamentally, and it's deeply troubling, not just because of the sheer numbers caught (with many more presumably undetected) but because it signals something essential has fractured. We must confront this fracture, because it's corrupting our national soul. When ordinary Israelis witness betrayal emanating from the Prime Minister's Office, they absorb the message that it's acceptable. When they watch Netanyahu and his ministers close ranks protecting cronies rather than demanding accountability, they understand it's permitted. When they learn that serving the enemy state Qatar isn't particularly serious, they conclude it's allowed.

Add to this the systematic demolition of everything once held sacred – the justice system, the security establishment, social solidarity, and ultimately the State of Israel itself. Simultaneously, ministers and legislators suspected of serious crimes skip interrogations or evade prosecution, while a prime minister transforms his trial into theater and seeks pardons (while refusing responsibility for the catastrophe that occurred on his watch and attempting to obstruct legitimate investigations). Some Israelis observe all this and conclude nothing remains sacred.If senior officials can get away with anything, why shouldn't the ordinary citizen?

Betrayal (3)

Benjamin Netanyahu must face investigation because these events occurred in his office, originated from his office, and were executed by his office personnel .The multiplicity of versions and lies regarding Feldstein could have been amusing, if it didn't teach how much this affair frightens those at the top. Initially, he was portrayed as a loyal patriot (Justice Minister Amir Ohana even compared him to Dreyfus). Suddenly, he transformed into disposable garbage that acted independently.

Make no mistake: Feldstein didn't stumble into sensitive locations by chance. I've visited the Israeli Air Force command center (known as "the pit") multiple times. Access requires official guest credentials. That's exactly what he possessed, and not just there. He operated as part of the prime minister's inner circle. That's why journalists accepted the information he peddled. He spoke with the Prime Minister's Office.

The new Shin Bet director, David Zini, should lead the demand for Netanyahu's investigation (Police Commissioner Dani Levy should be second). Among his responsibilities at the Shin Bet, Zini oversees counterespionage operations, security clearances, and safeguarding classified information at the Prime Minister's Office. All these systems failed, and accountability demands answers about whose responsibility this was and who authorized it. Only Netanyahu can provide those answers, including explanations for other matters like the classified document leaked to the German Bild.

Whether Zini will act remains doubtful. He hasn't yet developed the spine such action requires. Two days ago, his deputy, agreed to conclude his tenure and retire promptly. The two clashed from the outset. Perhaps because the deputy struggled adjusting back to deputy status after serving months as acting director. Perhaps due to Zini's habit of speaking, according to multiple sources, in exclamation points despite still being new to the job

Zini has commenced the search for the deputy's replacement. The sole natural internal candidate is currently studying abroad (N., former Operations Division head), and the organization's remaining senior leadership is exceptionally young in both age and experience. Expectations are that Zini will recruit an external deputy, someone who previously served and departed but would now return. The leading candidate is A., who headed the Southern Region in the years before October 7. Another possibility is N., formerly Gaza Division chief and currently at the National Security Council. Selecting him would constitute an Olympic-level leap over standard positions and ranks, but in contemporary Israel, anything's feasible.

Additional candidates exist, including some whose return would be welcome, though it won't materialize. For instance, E., who formerly led the Israel Region, failed to secure the deputy position solely because Netanyahu's office discovered his brother had participated in protests against the prime minister. This approaches the severity of mentioning "Ronen Bar," former chief of the Shin Bet, the two words Zini omitted from his inaugural address. Yes, Bar bears responsibility for October 7, but he also deserves credit for the Shin Bet's major wartime achievements. Zini's failure to acknowledge him registered within the Shin Bet as pandering to Netanyahu, who attended the ceremony.

Zini won't establish his legacy through Netanyahu's favor. He'll build it through rigorous work, through earning his organization's respect, and through delivering results that ordinary citizens experience. His public stance on Qatargate isn't optional. It's mandatory. This represents his sworn duty to national security. If he fails to stop betrayal at the top, he stands no chance of preventing the deluge rising from below.

The post How Qatar infiltrated Netanyahu's office while Iran recruited Israeli spies appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Before running over the 68-year-old man to death, the terrorist struck a 16-year-old boy with his vehicle near Beit She'an, lightly wounding him. Magen David Adom paramedics reported: "We found a 16-year-old boy lying on the sidewalk with injuries to his legs. He and bystanders informed us he had been struck by a vehicle. We administered medical treatment and transported him by ambulance to the hospital. His condition was light, and he remained fully conscious."

A 37-year-old man sustained moderate injuries after being struck at the scene in Afula and was evacuated for treatment.

Magen David Adom medics described the scene where the 18-year-old woman was fatally stabbed: "The wounded woman lay on the roadside beyond the separation barrier, unconscious and suffering from penetrating injuries to her body. We administered medical treatment, but her condition was critical, and we were compelled to pronounce her death."

The terrorist – West Bank resident

The attacker, a resident of Qabatiya near Jenin, had been staying in Israel for several days illegally. Police confirmed that the suspect was neutralized near HaMeonot Junction in Afula by a civilian bystander. The neutralized terrorist, a West Bank resident, was evacuated to the hospital in moderate condition. Investigation of the case continues at all scenes.

Police said, "A short time ago, a report was received about a stabbing incident near Ein Harod, during which a woman was wounded and a vehicle that fled the scene toward the city of Afula. The suspect vehicle was stopped a short time ago near the city of Afula, and the suspect was neutralized. Northern District police officers are at the scene, and the circumstances of the incident are under investigation."

A security official reported that initial findings indicate an Israeli citizen had employed the terrorist for an undetermined period. Security authorities are examining when and how he crossed into Israel, and whether the employment was on a regular basis.

Various authorities initially assessed that the incident was criminal in nature, but it was later determined to be a terror attack.

The post Terror rampage across northern Israel leaves 2 dead, 6 injured appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The post Mezuzah vandalism strikes again in Toronto appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The divide pits Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner against Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has the support of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Witkoff and Kushner, who are effectively managing the contacts on behalf of the president, are pushing for rapid progress on all fronts, including progression to Phase 2 and compelling Israel to reopen the Rafah crossing while preparing for the second withdrawal. According to these sources, they have pursued workarounds to Hamas disarmament requirements, potentially considerably extending the timeline.

Rubio, who leads the department that historically pressured Israel toward concessions during Democratic administrations, has adopted the opposite approach. According to the sources, his positions emphasize caution and adherence to Trump's 20-point framework. Specifically, he insists on stripping Hamas of weaponry and transferring governance authority before any complete Israeli pullback.

Rubio has also exercised restraint on the Turkish question (Turkey's role in regional security frameworks), endorsing Israel's position against incorporating Turkish forces into the International Security Force (the multinational contingent envisioned for Gaza). Hegseth, who receives intelligence from Central Command chief Brad Cooper and the Kiryat Gat Civil-Military Coordination Center, recognizes Hamas violations, aid theft, and the necessity of maintaining IDF presence in the Strip. The Palestinian Authority's involvement in weapons collection and future Gaza Strip governance represents another unresolved dispute.

The Iranian challenge

Regarding Iran, the Defense Department and Hegseth validate intelligence Israel provides about reconstituted missile arrays and air defense networks, aligning with Rubio's firm position on Iran and issuing an ultimatum before entertaining negotiations.

Witkoff maintains that preventing Iran's nuclear resurgence remains achievable while objecting primarily to warfare resumption, citing risks to additional Gulf nations and their petroleum infrastructure from Iranian retaliation. Notably, this stance enjoys near-universal administration support, particularly since Israeli actions including settlement expansion undermine normalization prospects. Trump administration factions advocate applying Israeli sovereignty over West Bank territories within comprehensive agreements, resembling proposals from the Deal of the Century (Trump's 2020 Middle East peace initiative) unveiled six years ago.

This internal debate has not escaped Israeli attention. An Israeli official acknowledged that certain administration figures brief against Israel, manufacturing pressure for compromises and expedited yet perilous war-ending arrangements. Witkoff will join the presidential meeting with Netanyahu, while the prime minister separately consults Rubio, whose positions apparently kindle optimism in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, applying Israeli law throughout Judea and Samaria will surface among numerous discussion topics during Trump-Netanyahu deliberations, Israel Hayom confirmed from multiple involved sources. Surprisingly, American pressure for advancing such initiatives exceeds Israeli momentum, following senior evangelical figures expressing determination to pursue it.

Northern arrangements

Trump and his team prioritize advancing two initiatives during Netanyahu meetings: civilian discussions with Lebanon's government and security arrangement negotiations with Syria's al-Sharaa administration. The administration perceives opportunities for launching positive developments potentially transforming the entire region. A regional diplomat noted that Syrian disagreements permit bridging while Lebanon presents abundant mutual interests forming foundations for eventual agreements.

Netanyahu himself responded to Israel Hayom inquiries this week that Israel envisions sovereign, stable Lebanon. He simultaneously emphasized addressing Hezbollah operatives directed from Iran.

Militarily, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) has achieved merely partial success exposing Hezbollah's southern bunkers and arsenals, with Washington meetings addressing operational approaches following expired deadlines for Hezbollah's southern disarmament, minimally.

Syria introduces an additional dialogue partner: Turkey, al-Sharaa's benefactor, pursuing comprehensive protectorate zones while constraining Israeli aerial and terrestrial operations inside Syrian territory. Israel requires this airspace critically for Iranian approaches, with Turks reportedly deploying radar batteries into Syrian territory capable of detecting Israeli Air Force movements, according to unconfirmed accounts.

Iran dominates discussions both specifically regarding reconstituted missile capabilities and broadly concerning Israeli demands for fundamental Iranian problem resolution. Israeli delegations will present evidence documenting Iranian involvement stoking regional terror organizations and independently initiating terror operations.

The objective demands recognition that addressing Iran requires comprehensive treatment, otherwise regional conflicts persist or cyclical confrontations recur monthly. Assessments suggest minimal agreement on intensified, severe sanctions regimes surpassing current measures, systems producing additional economic weakening of Iran's collapsing economy.

Two additional subjects emerge. First, the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), the bilateral security understanding expiring 2027, requiring foundational preliminary negotiations currently. Concurrently, bilateral trade relations, and technology and economic matters surface, spanning tariff questions through elite technology research collaborations.

The agenda's breadth will probably necessitate subsequent meetings between both leaders, with alternatives including delegating certain matters to ministerial and professional echelons.

The post Trump faces evangelical push on Israeli sovereignty despite public resistance appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"On my fourth day in captivity I was sexually assaulted"

Gonen spoke for the first time candidly about the sexual assaults she endured during captivity: "I experienced various types of harassment from four different men during captivity, in four different levels of severity. After I arrived at the apartment from the hospital, I went into the shower and things happened.

"The first incident was with that doctor named Mohammad who came to check my condition and 'came to help me in the shower' because I was wounded. He took everything from me. I felt this was it. Only four days had passed and I have to continue living with him in the house. There is no way to know how this situation would have developed."

Gonen added: "After the incident in the shower another terrorist came to the apartment, and filmed the first video of me in Gaza."

She recounts in a choked voice: "Mohammad the cameraman was annoying, he was always close to me and I felt that something bad was going to happen. I am left alone with Mohammad the cameraman, I understand that he and I are going to sleep alone that night, I feel him getting close to me and he starts giving me a back massage.

"He is giving me the massage and he started going down to my waist. I told him 'stop touching me' and I move his hand away and he continues touching my waist. I got angry and yelled at him and went to the children's room to sleep there. I wake up in the morning and he wakes up and he tells me: 'Yesterday evening was a one-time thing. From today we sleep together, bed next to bed. I go with you to the bathroom. Every night I will handcuff you.'

"I took a pregnancy test"

"And so the days pass. Mohammad comes into the bathroom with me and looks at me. He constantly comes into the bathroom with me, they give me massages on my leg and continue on my whole body. This lasted 16 days. And they were the worst of my captivity."

About the anxiety fearing she had become pregnant after she did not get her period, she recounted: "I lied to them [the terrorists] that I have a husband. I did not get my period, this scared all of us. My biggest fear was that they did something to me, and they were sure that I slept with my 'husband' that I invented the day before the party and that I am pregnant. One day they brought a pregnancy test, which came back negative."

Gonen recounted the third harassment she experienced, which according to her was the most severe: "I went to the bathroom and he came after and there was the third harassment, it lasted half an hour and was the most severe. Until you are not in this situation you cannot understand what happens to the body. Fear paralyzes, and I was paralyzed. Nothing went through my mind in those seconds except that I am afraid and that I am disgusted.

"There was one moment in the bathroom while everything is happening and I am crying. I remember a moment when I look from the small window that was there, and the sky is blue, the birds are chirping – and this is the situation I am in right now. Dissonance between tranquility and birds chirping outside, and brutality and disgust at what is happening in the bathroom. I reached, for the third time, the worst situation there is."

"Gaya took her last breath"

Gonen recounted the morning of October 7 at the Nova Festival, where she had gone with her friend Gaya: "The light starts to come up, and I am filming videos, and Gaya is in the background. There was a beautiful sunrise that morning. I lift my head to the sky and I tell her: 'What is this, did they get us fireworks for the party?'" referring to the rockets launched from Gaza.

"Suddenly we started hearing people shouting 'terrorists.' We got out of the car and started running. We entered a wadi to hide in a bush. I was wearing pink pants that would make me visible no matter how well I hid. Suddenly Ben Shimoni arrives, a friend of Gaya's from work. Ben drove [back and forth] three times, I am the 13th person he saved. When he picked us up this was the third time he returned to Nova.

"We are heading toward home and we see 50 terrorists closing us off, they are waiting for us on the road. This is fear that there is no way to explain. In an instant, the vehicle was riddled with bullets. The windows shattered. I lift my head and see Ben not alive. Gaya screams 'Romi they shot me,' I sent my hand to check her pulse and exactly then a bullet hit me in that hand. We manage to exchange a good look in the eyes, and she took her last breath."

"They dragged me like a garbage bag"

"They lift me out of the vehicle, and put me on the road, I was afraid they would touch me and I was afraid they would rape me. A terrorist comes and he drags me like a garbage bag on the road. They grab me from the loops of my pants and throw me into their vehicle. We start driving. The terrorist punched me and we are driving with me all covered in blood.

"The first stop in Gaza was Shifa Hospital, they brought me into a room, at the entrance stood two people with Kalashnikovs. I am lying on a bed, one guy takes off my shoes another takes off my clothes, earrings and jewelry. I am lying there and 15 people are touching me. They cut my clothes and I am lying there naked.

"A few isolated days after I arrived in Gaza, I was lying there on the sofa in the living room, there was a radio on, and I heard 'Where is Romi?' I identified my mother's voice, I jumped from the sofa, I couldn't stop shaking," she recounted.

Following Gonen's testimony, Israeli President Isaac Herzog wrote on X: Romi Gonen's testimony is heartbreaking. In a trembling voice, yet with extraordinary courage, Romi revealed the hell she endured in Hamas captivity – sexual violence and a systematic attempts to crush the human spirit. Her story must be told everywhere, so that all will remember what we endured as a people, what the hostages endured, and what Romi endured." He added, "Romi, you are a true hero. We salute your courage."

The post 'I was paralyzed by fear': Ex-hostage breaks silence on Hamas sexual violence appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

If Hezbollah was at level 100 on October 6, 2023, it reached the ceasefire on November 27, 2024 at roughly level 20. And its condition at the end of 2025? A slight improvement — somewhere around 25.

In the first two months after the war ended, Hezbollah was unable to staff platoon- and company-level command positions. The blow to its firepower capabilities was not only physical but systemic: the concept of dispersing and concealing the rocket and missile array collapsed. The same applies to the Radwan Force, which will not be able to storm northern communities due to the new buffer zone and the destruction of its bases in Shiite villages near the border.

The time since has therefore been used for rethinking. One conclusion is not to respond to Israeli strikes. In Israel this is interpreted as weakness on the part of an organization that for years deterred Israel and operated in Lebanon as if it owned the place. That is the truth — but not the whole truth. Hezbollah also refrains from responding because it understands that at the end of each week it is still stronger than it was the week before. So why give Israel a pretext for a broader attack?

Weakening Hezbollah is only one side of the equation. The other is strengthening the Lebanese state. Israel excels at doing its part, but it will never be able to eliminate the organization on its own. The reason for Lebanon's weakness is Lebanese trauma. The Israeli "never again" is the Holocaust; the Lebanese equivalent, by contrast, is the civil war that destroyed the state. Hezbollah's threat of war is deterrent enough. What threatens the Lebanese are Kalashnikovs, not rockets — and those the IDF cannot destroy.

So what is to be done? The story is also a race between bad money and good money. In the year since the ceasefire, despite efforts to block it, a billion dollars smuggled by Iran has nevertheless entered Lebanon, all of it devoted to rebuilding Hezbollah. And the good money? A quarter of a billion Western dollars has reached the country, but it is locked in a special fund that will be released only once anti-corruption conditions are met. At present, for example, the Lebanese army can operate only half its forces at any given time. Earning starvation wages of about $100, most soldiers work week-on, week-off — in the army and on side jobs — just to survive. Raise their salaries, and force strength would double overnight. If the United States and its regional allies want to close the story, they need to open their wallets.

An alliance of interests

The product at the heart of the dispute over the investigation into the October 7 failure is not the commission of inquiry. The product is time. We are rapidly approaching the moment — if it has not already arrived — when the conclusions of any commission will become irrelevant, when the investigative material will be completely contaminated.

One aspect, the most dramatic of all, has already been neutralized: personal conclusions. Of all the senior officials in the system on the morning of the massacre, only one remains in office — Benjamin Netanyahu. Fate would have it that he is also the only one against whom personal conclusions cannot be determined. A commission can rule that someone may not serve as defense minister, because the authority to appoint and dismiss lies with the prime minister. It can rule that someone may not serve as chief of staff, because the authority lies with the defense minister. But it cannot order the Knesset to dismiss a prime minister. Anyone who doubts this should ask Ariel Sharon, whom a state commission of inquiry barred from serving as defense minister — only for him to later become prime minister. The commission that will be formed will be able to impose personal conclusions about as effectively as the famous commission Menachem Begin established for the Arlosoroff murder affair almost fifty years earlier.

One may agree with Likud's criticism of the complete politicization of the Supreme Court in general and of its current president in particular. According to a Jewish People Policy Institute poll published this week, only 21% support Chief Justice Amit alone appointing the members. But it is very difficult to agree with the solution they propose: an even more political commission. If the opposition agrees to appoint half the members, the commission will turn into a Knesset committee, complete with heckling and zero substance. If they refuse, the Speaker of the Knesset will appoint all the members. Is a politician less political than the president of the Supreme Court?

MK Ariel Kallner is considering interim solutions, such as having the state comptroller or the president of the Supreme Court appoint half the members if the opposition refuses. It is doubtful that salvation will come from there.

The correct solution was and remains that the president of the Supreme Court waive his honor and entrust the formation of the commission to Deputy President Solberg, who enjoys far greater public trust. This is the scenario Netanyahu fears most, since the judge is likely to appoint an independent commission — and such a commission is likely to determine who is responsible. Fortunately for him, he has a partner in fierce opposition to this scenario: the president of the Supreme Court himself. Heaven forbid he acknowledge the problem he has with broad segments of the public and attempt to fix it. If he does, from that moment on he would be a president on probation.

There is an old saying that history writes straight with crooked lines. An example? The Yom Kippur War led to the political upheaval and the right's rise to power. And yet it was that very right which brought about a complete withdrawal from Sinai, down to the last centimeter — far to the left of the platform of the preceding left-wing government. The public wanted an agreement with Egypt, but subconsciously preferred that it be carried out by the hawks of Likud, not the doves of the Alignment.

A fascinating article by Professor Amir Goldstein, published in the equally fascinating book "To the Right of Zionism" edited by Avi Shilon, argues that the withdrawal should not have surprised anyone. In the years after the war, Begin shifted leftward under public pressure. The public wanted to remove the Alignment but feared its opposition to agreements with Arab states. In response, even before the 1973 elections, the Likud leader accused the Alignment of presiding over repeated wars and bloodshed. He sent his number two, MK Bader, to publish an article titled "Who Said No Retreat," stating that the movement was not in principle opposed to withdrawal from Sinai and the Golan.

Begin himself was forced in 1974 to propose a "plan for peace and security" that included three years of ceasefire with Arab states. He ironically referred to himself as a "warmonger for peace." When a party activist called for withdrawal from Sinai, he was heckled with cries of "What about Jabotinsky?" Begin replied coolly: "Sir, for a hundred days in Sinai I do not hear about Jabotinsky; I hear about life in this country."

Likud's platform ahead of the 1977 elections already included an explicit promise: "Within Sinai the border will be set between Egypt and Israel, and on the Golan Heights the border will be set between Syria and Israel." Still, one cannot do without attacking the left, so Begin railed against the Communist Party for being "ready to abandon all of Sinai" — something he himself would do two years later.

"It is precisely in a change of government that the chance for peace lies," he said at the time. The media's conception was that it heard Begin's double talk — one voice for the base and one for the swing voters — but chose to believe the hawkish one.

From historical parable to contemporary lesson: if after Yom Kippur '73 the public moved left while growing tired of left-wing rule, after Simchat Torah '23 the public is moving right while raging against right-wing rule. The opposition parties are discovering, as Begin once did, that to translate anger into an upheaval it is not enough to point to the failure itself — they will need to abandon decades-old ideology. And so Lapid embarrasses Netanyahu's government by approving a law to apply sovereignty; Gantz votes against the establishment of a Palestinian state; Eisenkot attacks Netanyahu for agreeing to two states; and Golan scolds the government for excessive hesitation in the war against Hezbollah.

Are the interpretations, as in the 1970s, missing the sharp turn to the right and treating it as mere campaign theatrics? And might the politicians of the "Anyone But Bibi" bloc find themselves in a government taking steps even more radical than Netanyahu's? His position was strong enough to end the war while Hamas was still standing and not apply sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. What about theirs?

Ballad for a aouble agent

The decision to recruit Eli Feldstein to the Prime Minister's Office was made by Jonatan Urich. In the second week of October 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu had slightly more urgent matters on his mind than hiring an assistant spokesman. But the general direction was clear: someone who would speak with the military correspondents through a semi-official channel, based on the assumption that if there is 100 percent responsibility for the failure, then the larger the share that falls on the chief of staff's shoulders, the less will weigh on the prime minister's.

Feldstein was, ostensibly, the perfect candidate: well-connected in the IDF, with astonishing familiarity with the internal politics of the senior officer corps, knowing exactly where the information caches were hidden that would continue to trouble the chief of staff for a long time. It was no accident that senior General Staff officials were alarmed when they heard of his appointment.

Journalists not knowing until the affair exploded that they were being fed Qatari messages is one thing. No less intriguing is the fact that deep into the war, many of us did not know that Feldstein was working for the Prime Minister's Office at all. The employment arrangement was crooked in substance and defective in its paperwork.

Urich paid the full price for this employment. After several days of shifting explanations, he produced a shocking version: the money I received in the chain from Qatar was a substitute for payment from the Prime Minister's Office, with Urich's knowledge. That was the moment the affair threatened to shake Netanyahu's position. After all, if his ties with Qatar are so close that it functions as his petty cash fund, the implication is that fanatic messaging is influencing national security inside the Prime Minister's Office.

That version collapsed long ago and finally died this week with the publication of Feldstein's correspondence by Avishai Grinzaig. This was not a fictitious employment by Netanyahu but a deal between the adviser and Qatar: money in exchange for PR. The question is Urich's knowledge. The entire argument that he was "in the loop" inside the office (not during the 2022 World Cup) rests on a single refined phrase — "shitting cubes" — which he used in response to a text from Feldstein containing a briefing that helped Qatar. The slang term means something approximating "ok, got it". More will be required to tie him to the dark deal. He will also be required to explain, in parallel, whether he worked for Qatar abroad during the war as alleged — a claim his associates deny.

The most fascinating figure in the affair is Urich, not Feldstein. He is the adviser behind the move that turned Netanyahu, in the eyes of his voters, into the leader of a movement, and he is signed onto a record of six election campaigns with thirty mandates or more. Urich exits them with three indictments, in what appears to be targeted treatment by law enforcement: the Filber harassment affair, the Bild leak, and Qatargate. These proceedings will conclude in the mid-2030s, while in the meantime he is barred from contact with Netanyahu and can at most work within the Likud. Does anyone know a way to run a prime-ministerial candidate by telepathy?

His temporary departure coincides with Ron Dermer's permanent exit. When people talk about Netanyahu's inner circle, these two were his environment: one handled the diplomatic flank for the prime minister, the other the communications front. Netanyahu is entering a year of diplomatic decisions and a political election year without either of them. One is in business, not answering the phone; the other is under investigation, unable to call.

The post What is Hezbollah planning? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Meeting the new operational demands requires the IDF to procure additional aircraft, including Apache helicopters, while also extending the service life of older platforms. Alert schedules have also been revised. Fighter pilots, for example, are now expected to strike within minutes of being called up, compared with 45 minutes under the alert posture in place on October 6. Within the first hour, they are required to strike at least 60 targets to disrupt enemy activity.

Minimum requirements have also been set for the number of unmanned aerial vehicles that must be airborne at any given time, as well as for the quantity and types of munitions carried by various aircraft. Five helicopters have been placed on constant alert to rapidly deploy intervention forces from Shayetet 13, Sayeret Matkal and Shaldag. To enable rapid insertion of forces near unfolding incidents, the IDF has prepared hundreds of landing zones across the country, allowing troops to be set down in numerous locations. In Judea and Samaria alone, more than 500 landing zones have been established.

The IDF stresses that the Israeli Air Force does not replace regional commands for border defense. However, despite the fact that the Air Force met all of its alert requirements on October 7 and even exceeded them, it proved ineffective in the face of the scale of the attack. As a result, the aerial response to eruptive incidents has been fundamentally reworked.

Rules of engagement have also been revised. Under the new directives, when a division commander declares the code word "Ra'am," signaling an eruptive incident within the division, orders come into force that delegate significantly greater authority to pilots. For example, pilots may strike enemy forces identified either on Israeli territory or across the border, while making every effort to safeguard Israeli troops and civilians.

Fighter jets have also been assigned predefined targets in every sector based on terrain analysis. Even if contact with headquarters cannot be established, pilots know that during an incident in a given sector they are to strike targets already designated in advance. To cope with dozens of simultaneous incidents, the Air Force has defined "air combat teams," combining crews from observation, transport, attack helicopter and UAV squadrons. These teams are usually positioned close to the area of operations and can divide and manage incidents from the air if the Air Force's central command bunker becomes overloaded.

To embed the changes, a "Border Defense Airpower" conference was held about two weeks ago for commanders and officers from the Air Force and the Ground Forces. The shift represents a conceptual change, under which the Air Force commander approved an updated mission for the air and space arm, formally adding "border defense" to its mandate. In parallel, the Participation and Helicopters Command has changed its name and mission to the Participation and Border Defense Command. Headed by an officer with the rank of brigadier general, the command is now responsible for border defense during eruptive incidents and for providing aerial support to ground maneuvering forces.

In addition, while on October 7 the Air Force operated through a single control, during the war a new control, dubbed "Oz," was established. It operates around the clock and is tasked with providing a rapid aerial umbrella to all forces fighting across all fronts.

Further changes include adding a phone to pilots' helmets and distributing the phone numbers of all local security coordinators nationwide to every squadron. In light of the communications breakdowns on October 7, the IDF has also institutionalized five communication channels linking forces managing incidents in the air and on the ground, ranging from standard military communications to the use of civilian networks to ensure connectivity between all forces responding to an event.

The post How October 7 forced the Israeli Air Force to change everything appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Nowhere is this new reality more apparent than at Christmas markets today. Christmas markets are among Europe's most beloved cultural traditions, dating back as far as the 13th century. As a Jewish girl, one of my favorite things to do after Chanukah is visit a Christmas market, either locally here in Israel, where Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Haifa host markets and celebrations, or, if I am really craving the Christmas spirit, to travel to Europe and experience the nostalgia of how I grew up celebrating Christmas in Canada. What were once open, festive spaces for families and tourists now require concrete barricades and armed guards. Christmas markets have shifted from calm, joyful gatherings to prime targets for attacks by radical Islamists, forcing police across Europe to impose extensive counterterrorism measures.

The phrase "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people" was never just meant to scare people. We are now living through that reality.

Security services across Europe have repeatedly warned that Christmas markets are high-value targets for Islamist terrorism because of their large crowds, open layouts, and religious symbolism. Just weeks ago, five men were arrested in Germany on suspicion of plotting to ram a vehicle into a Christmas market with the intent of killing or injuring as many people as possible. Three Moroccans, an Egyptian, and a Syrian were detained, and authorities stated they suspected an Islamist motive. Adding another layer of concern, the German newspaper Bild reported that the Egyptian suspect was an imam at a local mosque near the planned attack site.

This threat is not new. Just last year in Germany, a Saudi national who arrived in the country in 2006 and applied for asylum a decade later allegedly carried out a deadly attack on a Christmas market in Magdeburg, killing five people and injuring more than 200 others. The Guardian reported that the suspect had posted warnings on social media suggesting that "something big will happen." However, the first known terrorist plot targeting a Christmas market dates back to 2000, when authorities uncovered plans to attack the Strasbourg market near the cathedral in France. That December, an al-Qaeda–affiliated cell planned to carry out a bombing on New Year's Eve. French and German police foiled the plot after dismantling a Frankfurt-based terrorist network linked to the operation. Fourteen individuals were later convicted, four in Germany and ten in France, including Mohammed Bensakhria, who was identified as the cell's operational leader and widely regarded as a senior al-Qaeda figure in Europe with direct ties to Osama bin Laden.

Following the Arab Spring and the subsequent surge of migration from Muslim-majority countries into Europe, a modest but noticeable increase in such attacks began to emerge. One of the most significant occurred in December 2016, when a heavy truck was deliberately driven into the Christmas market at Berlin's Breitscheidplatz. The attack killed 13 people and injured more than 50 others. The perpetrator, Anis Amri, a 24-year-old Tunisian national whose asylum application had been rejected, hijacked the truck after murdering its driver and then drove it into the crowd. ISIS quickly claimed responsibility, and the attack became one of the deadliest terrorist incidents in Germany in recent history.

Two years later, in December 2018, the Strasbourg Christmas market was once again targeted, and this time the attack succeeded. The attacker, Chekattif Chekatt, armed with a revolver and a knife, assaulted civilians in and around the market, killing five people and wounding 11 others. He was known to police, had been flagged as a suspected extremist, and was connected to ISIS prior to the attack.

While ISIS no longer controls large swaths of territory as it did at its peak between 2014 and 2019, the group continues to maintain cells across Europe and in Western countries, including Australia. There is evidence suggesting that ISIS inspired the attack at the Bondi Beach Chanukah celebration, where two terrorists opened fire and killed at least fifteen Jews. Australian authorities reported that flags and explosive materials linked to the father-and-son attackers indicated ISIS influence. The thwarted terror attack at Taylor Swift's concert in Vienna during her Eras Tour was also carried out by an ISIS sympathizer.

Christians must come to terms with a difficult reality: they too are targets. The belief that terrorism is someone else's problem, confined to Jews, Israelis, or distant conflict zones, has been shattered. Churches, Christmas markets, concerts, and holiday celebrations now sit squarely in the crosshairs of violent Islamist extremism. Faith, visibility, and public joy are precisely what make these spaces attractive to those who seek to terrorize open societies.

Radical Islamist ideology does not distinguish between Jewish or Christian lives, Western or non-Western civilians. Ironically, the group of people who have suffered the most from radical Islam are Muslims themselves. The targets change, but the goal remains the same: fear, submission, and the erosion of free, open civilization.

Jews, Christians, Muslims and all people who value human life must stand together against jihadist ideology wherever it appears.

The post Christmas markets are now terror targets appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The target was identified as Hossein Hussein Mahmoud Marshad al-Jawhari, a key operative in the Quds Force's operations unit. He was killed together with another terrorist, Majed Qansoua, according to Israeli officials.

Al-Jawhari operated under Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and was involved in Iranian directed terrorist activity against the State of Israel and Israeli security forces, the IDF said.

In a statement, the IDF stressed that Unit 840, the Quds Force's external operations unit headed by Asghar Bagheri and his deputy Mohammad Reza Ansari, is responsible for directing Iranian terrorist activity against Israel. "The IDF and the Shin Bet view with utmost seriousness any attempt by the Iranian regime and its proxies to advance terrorist plots and will continue to act to remove any threat to the State of Israel," the statement said.

Earlier, Lebanese media reported an Israeli strike in northeastern Lebanon. The reports said that in addition to al-Jawhari, Qansoua was also killed in the attack.

The post Israel eliminates senior Iranian Quds Force operative in Lebanon appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

But, we also know Operation Rising Lion last June achieved its objective first and foremost because it took Iran completely by surprise. To that end, a range of deceptive narratives were spread, confusing the Israeli and American public, and certainly Iran's leaders and senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials.

So what are we supposed to make of all this?

In the topsy-turvy reality we are living in, does it mean Israel is heading toward a coordinated strike on Iran, with or without the US? Are all these reports designed to distract everyone to enable a surprise scenario in Lebanon or Gaza? Or are they meant to divert attention from a US intention to push Israel into the next phase in Gaza, contrary to the prime minister's intent?

Or, perhaps, the meeting is meant to serve the domestic political needs of both leaders, who could use a public display of closeness amid the internal and external storms bearing down on Israel and the US?

These questions are fascinating, but it is important to consider the possibility that all this chatter is indeed meant to distract attention, but from something else entirely: the Netanyahu government's growing difficulty in coordinating policy with the Trump administration on fundamental issues.

The deep strategic coordination between Israel and the US should, in recent months, have matured into the launch of negotiations to formulate a new decade long Memorandum of Understanding, known as an MOU. The current MOU is set to expire in about two years, and judging by the previous round, the process of shaping a new one should already have begun.

The previous MOU, signed in 2016, codified the web of strategic cooperation between Israel and the US. It also included an American funding package for the purchase of US-made weaponry from the American defense industry totaling about $3.3 billion a year, plus an additional $500 million package for Israel's procurement of missile interceptors.

Netanyahu knows all of this well. He was prime minister then, too, and the negotiations on Israel's behalf were led by my colleague Professor Yaakov Nagel, who at the time served as acting head of the National Security Council.

Netanyahu is delaying the launch of the process, possibly because he fears Trump is not eager to approve a new MOU. On the other hand, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said publicly this week that while it is a presidential decision over which he has little influence as ambassador, he believes conditions will ripen for signing another MOU.

In a normal situation, one would add to this the fact that the previous US president signed a presidential statement given to Israel's government during his visit in the summer of 2022, in which the US committed to the continuity of MOUs with Israel even after the current one ends. True, this was during Prime Minister Yair Lapid's tenure and under US President Joe Biden, but today, unfortunately, continuity of decision-making between governments and administrations does not appear to carry much weight.

In Washington, there are currently winds calling for cuts to US foreign aid. Unfortunately, voices are also multiplying among extremists on both the right and the left calling for an end to all US backing for Israel. Precisely because of this, it should be the perfect moment for an experienced prime minister like Netanyahu to put this issue at the center of his meeting with Trump. He should show that now is the time to make America's commitment visible for all to see, not only to Israel's security but to the value of strategic cooperation between the two countries.

This is the moment to showcase Israel's significant contribution to US national security: through procurement of US weapons systems; operating them in a real operational environment that encourages their improvement; extensive and deep intelligence cooperation that protects US forces in our region; and the opportunity to shape the Middle East in a positive direction through a partnership in which Israel bears most of the security burden.

At the same time, such an MOU would entrench Israel's standing in the region as the US' leading ally, and at the heart of a pragmatic alliance in the spirit of the Abraham Accords, cooperating against shared enemies such as Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is an issue of fundamental importance to Israel's national security. All that remains is to hope that Netanyahu addresses it as well in his meeting with Trump.

The post As Netanyahu heads to meet Trump, US aid takes center stage appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.