A who’s who of the world’s major political leaders, past and present, are descending on Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference. After last year’s forum, in which Vice President JD Vance, who was leading the U.S. delegation, took an abrasive tone against Europe in his keynote address that rankled some attendees, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will lead this year’s delegation.

Unlike last year, when the Israel-Hamas war featured prominently on the agenda, this year’s MSC schedule has relatively little time dedicated to talking about the conflict, with just two sessions expected to touch on Gaza. And while last year’s attendee list included a number of Israelis, including President Isaac Herzog and Defense Minister Israel Katz, there are no current Israeli officials slated to speak. (Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will join one of the panels on Gaza reconstruction.)

Also absent this year is a Qatari presence. ​​Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, who spoke last year about de-escalating tensions in the Middle East, is not on this year’s schedule, nor are any other Qatari officials.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — back this year after skipping the 2025 MSC to travel to the U.S.-Mexico border — and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) will lead a bipartisan congressional delegation that includes Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mark Warner (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Steve Daines (R-MT), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Peter Welch (D-VT), Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI). 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is slated to speak on two panels today, one on the “rise of populism,” and another on the “future of U.S. foreign policy,” the latter in conversation with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Matthew Whitaker, the U.S.’ representative to NATO. Matt Duss, a former foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who has been critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship and is now advising the New York Democrat, said that she will use her perch in Munich to give the “working-class perspective” on the intersection of domestic politics and foreign policy.

AOC isn’t the only millennial member of Congress to be addressing the MSC this year. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ), the first Iranian American Democrat elected to Congress, will be speaking on Sunday on a panel titled “Under Reconstruction: A World Order for the Next Generation.”

The conference kicks off this afternoon with a sit-down with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, followed by a panel discussion on “The International Order Between Reform and Destruction,” which will feature U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Michael Waltz, the EU’s Kaja Kallas, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud and Colombian Defense Minister Pedro Arnulfo Sánchez Suárez.

A town hall session focused on Gaza rebuilding efforts will take place later this afternoon. Speakers include Nickolay Mladenov, the Bulgarian diplomat serving as the head of the Gaza Board of Peace, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Livni and Palestinian Authority Foreign Affairs Minister Varsen Aghabekian. Concurrent to that panel is a session focused on maritime security, with Yemeni President Rashad al-Alimi, whose country has been used by the Iran-backed Houthis as a launching pad for attacks on ships transiting through the Gulf, set to speak.

Later in the day, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour will moderate back-to-back sessions on the future of Iran: the first with exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi and British-Iranian actress and activist Nazanin Boniadi; and the second with Graham, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola and Manal Radwan, a senior advisor in Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry.

Rubio will kick off Saturday’s sessions with a mainstage conversation with MSC Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger, followed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Also on Saturday  morning, former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and the International Committee for the Red Cross’ Mirjana Spoljaric Egger will speak on a panel about peace deals.

Later in the day, Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department’s under secretary of war for policy will speak in conversation with Foreign Policy’s Ravi Agrawal before joining a larger panel focused on security in the Indo-Pacific.

The Middle East will take center stage again on Saturday evening, during a session titled “Building on Momentum in the Middle East: From Promise to Progress?” that will feature another appearance by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, joined by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide and Sigrid Kaag, who now sits on the executive board of the Board of Peace.

Prince Faisal will also speak alongside U.K. Foreign Minister Yvette Cooper and White House senior advisor Massad Boulos in a session Saturday focused on ending the war in Sudan.

Despite the Trump administration’s willingness to diplomatically engage with Iranian officials, leading Middle East experts told Jewish Insider on Monday that military action against Tehran still remains a very real possibility.

“I can’t tell you what I’m going to do,” President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday evening when asked about the threshold for an Iran strike. 

“We have a tremendous force going there [to the Middle East], just like we did in Venezuela,” said Trump. “I’d like to see a deal negotiated. But right now, we’re talking to [Iran] and if we could work something out, that’d be great. If we can’t, probably bad things will happen.”

White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to meet in Istanbul on Friday to discuss a potential new nuclear agreement, according to reports. Jared Kushner, who has played a key role in recent high-profile diplomatic negotiations, is also expected to attend, alongside the foreign ministers of Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in the first meeting between the U.S. and Iran since U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June.

The planned talks come as the administration continues to exert pressure on Tehran — in response to Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters last month, Trump has publicly weighed the possibility of U.S. military intervention, ordering the movement of additional military assets into the region and issuing a series of stark warnings on social media indicating that U.S. forces are “ready, willing and able to rapidly fulfill [their] mission, with speed and violence” should a deal fail to be made. 

While the administration has emphasized diplomacy as its preferred path, analysts caution that negotiations do not necessarily signal that the U.S. will not strike.

“Military intervention remains likely in light of President Trump’s demonstrated willingness to use force and the U.S. military buildup in the region,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israel Policy Forum. “Given the gulf between the American and Iranian positions and the general hard-line position of the Iranian regime on nuclear issues, it is hard to tag a nuclear deal as a likely outcome.” 

Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that a strike does remain on the table. She said that a deal could be difficult to reach and the upcoming meeting in Istanbul is unlikely to yield meaningful results or concessions from Iran. 

“The planned meeting is likely a diplomatic box-checking exercise and smokescreen to enable a continued U.S. military buildup before Trump authorizes strikes,” Stricker said. “The administration’s demands that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment, cap its missile program, and halt support for regional proxies and terrorism, as well as stop executing its people, are nonstarters for the regime.”

Koplow said the administration’s “mixed signals” on whether it will seek diplomacy or take military action are likely “not a ruse or a diversion,” but instead a signal that Trump “has not actually made up his mind” and is “unsure what his end goal is.”

Jason Greenblatt, who served as White House Middle East envoy in the first Trump administration, asserted that “there’s no mixed signals,” arguing that the president’s messaging has been clear. 

“President Trump has made the choice clear: a real, enforceable deal that ends Iran’s nuclear and missile threats and protects the U.S., our allies, and the Iranian people — or decisive action,” said Greenblatt, who emphasized that while Trump is reluctant to engage in war, the president will not accept an agreement he views as insufficient.

“He is not a war president,” Greenblatt said, “but he will not accept a weak deal. Iran’s leadership should understand by now that President Trump means exactly what he says.”

Stricker also noted that Trump has consistently sought to avoid prolonged conflict, but argued that Iran’s internal repression and continued nuclear advances may push the president toward decisive action. On Saturday, satellite images revealed new activity at Iranian nuclear sites, a potential sign that Tehran is aiming to salvage remaining materials from the June strikes. 

“President Trump favors stability and prioritizes ending violence in global affairs,” she said. “After achieving the defanging of Tehran’s nuclear program, the regime has shown it remains a threat — the ongoing massacre is too much for Trump to tolerate as the leader of the free world.” “The president will likely ensure the regime pays a price, but whether the price is regime change remains to be seen,” she added.

When detailing what potential U.S. military intervention could look like, Koplow said that it would likely be “limited” in scope.  

“Any U.S. action is likely going to fall short of what the Israelis would like to see, which is a campaign that doesn’t stop until the regime has fallen,” said Koplow. “Trump seems to favor quick strikes, and he is also facing wall-to-wall opposition from Arab states regarding the prospects of a long campaign that destabilizes the region and damages prospects for trade, investment, and growth.”

However, other analysts read the shift to negotiations as a signal that intervention is increasingly unlikely. Jonathan Ruhe, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America told JI that U.S. military action is “unlikely for the moment.”

“An even bigger concern now is that military action could be off the table indefinitely, in a way it wasn’t just a day or two ago, as renewed talks now seem more likely,” said Ruhe. 

Ruhe also noted that a key indicator of Trump’s intentions will be “how long he keeps the ‘armada’ within striking distance,” referring to the U.S. military assets in the region. He added that negotiating with Tehran will likely result in an unfavorable outcome for the U.S. 

“Negotiating with Iran is absolutely the worst possible option for the United States now, because Iran’s regime will go from being on the ropes to thinking it prevailed,” said Ruhe, noting that Tehran is unlikely to agree to an “acceptable deal,” instead using the “prospect of talks to stave off military threats.”

“[Iran] is trying to do what it always does, playing for time and seeing what concessions it can wrangle without ever giving up anything itself,” Ruhe added. “This leaves zero upside for the U.S., since Iran is too emboldened to agree to serious concessions. There’s plenty of downside, too, since U.S. credibility would be dangerously eroded in Tehran’s eyes if Trump fails to fulfill his earlier threats.”

Koplow said Jerusalem is also concerned about a potential nuclear deal and is likely to perceive Iran’s willingness to enter talks as a way of “dragging out the process indefinitely.”

“[The Israelis] are concerned that Trump will back off his threats to take action or end up signing a deal that falls short of addressing the entire basket of issues — nuclear, missiles, and proxies,” said Koplow. 

Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had said Tehran would strike Israel in response to any U.S. military action, in an interview with the Lebanese-based Al Mayadeen.

Stricker warned that any agreement that falls short of dismantling the regime’s power structure and fails to address key issues would be problematic not only for the U.S. and Israel, but for the Iranian public.

“Any deal with the Islamic Republic would represent a historic betrayal of the Iranian people,” Stricker said. “The only negotiation America should entertain with Tehran is the exit of top regime officials from Iran and their relinquishing of power prior to an orderly transition to democracy.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) expressed confidence on Thursday that Saudi Arabia is intent on maintaining its status as a moderating force in the Middle East amid growing concerns that Riyadh is entertaining more hardline Islamism.

Graham met on Thursday morning with Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman Al Saud in Washington and spoke by phone on Wednesday with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud. The South Carolina senator sat down with Jewish Insider on Thursday afternoon for a wide-ranging discussion, where he said that, despite feeling unsettled by some Saudi conduct, he is not concerned that the kingdom is making a pivot toward a more extremist posture, as some in the region and the Jewish community have worried.

Graham had earlier this week publicly criticized the kingdom for its growing conflict with the United Arab Emirates and what he described as a failure to act to protect the Syrian Kurds against Syrian government advances.

“After having met with the Saudis today, I understand their concerns better. I don’t agree with everything they’ve done, but I fundamentally believe that the vision is still the same,” Graham told JI. “To all those who think like me and have been upset by what you’ve heard, I understand why you’re upset, but I would just say this: If I feel good, you should feel good.”

Once a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman — particularly in the aftermath of the 2018 murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi — Graham said that MBS’ grand economic and development plan, Vision 2030, convinced him that the Saudi government is interested in development, peace and deradicalization, because those factors would be incompatible with MBS’ plan.

“If the man is willing to spend a trillion dollars to make Saudi Arabia a destination of choice, he’s got to be smart enough to know that the old model of the Mideast has to be replaced,” he said of the crown prince.

Graham said claims that Vision 2030 had stalled were “overstated” and dismissed the notion that the Saudis were struggling financially, despite flagging oil prices. The kingdom recently announced plans to significantly scale back the flagship Vision 2030 project and the futuristic megacity Neom.

“They’ve had 97 projects, 94 are on target,” Graham said of Vision 2030. “This idea that Saudi Arabia is running out of money is bulls**t. Every time you fill up your car, they appreciate it. … They’re not abandoning their 2030 model. Has anybody in Turkey talked about a 2030 model?”

The South Carolina senator, a leading advocate for U.S. strikes against the Iranian regime, also said he expects that action against the Islamic Republic is still forthcoming, arguing that the United States’ credibility is on the line after President Donald Trump promised protesters that the U.S. would assist them.

Graham framed the protests and their ultimate outcome as a tipping point for the region and the world.

“[Trump] said, ‘Keep protesting. Help is on the way.’ That is his Ronald Reagan moment. You have to follow through,” Graham said, referring to Reagan’s demand for the Berlin Wall to be torn down, and arguing that there is now a clock running for the U.S. to take action.

“Regime change is being led by the people. The question is: Are you for the ayatollah or the people? Donald Trump said, ‘I’ll be with the people.’ Well, that means you’ve got to be with the people,” he added. “I’d like to find a solution without conflict. I don’t know what that would be, but I am confident that it can’t go on forever. There’ll come a point where the people lose hope. We’re not there yet, but the sooner we can demonstrate help is on the way, the better.”

If the U.S. fails to follow through, Graham warned, “It’s going to make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.”

“Everybody’s gonna hedge their bets. Nobody will follow America. Nobody will trust the idea that, you know, making peace is good. It will set the region back 100 years,” he continued.

And, Graham argued, the fall of the Iranian regime is a precondition for any further progress toward regional normalization.

“Nobody in their right mind can talk about normalization in the Mideast until we know how the protests end in Iran,” Graham said. “If, in fact, the ayatollah is still standing after all this bluster and rhetoric, normalization is lost for decades.”

But if the regime falls, bringing its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis down with it, Graham asserted that normalization would be easy to achieve, adding, “If you could sink the mothership, the ripple effect changes Lebanon and Syria.”

Graham said that, from everything he knows about Trump, he expects the president to follow through on his promise to the protesters. He added that he expects the U.S., and potentially Israel, to deliver a “bigger” hit to the regime now than they might have if they struck several weeks ago when the protests began.

“I will judge the president by what he says and what he does. I have no reason to believe that he will not fulfill the promises he’s made. His track record is pretty good. He doesn’t want conflict, but he won’t be trifled with,” Graham said.

Trump’s vacillating threats to the regime, and the lack of U.S. action following a crackdown that officials said has quelled the recent protests, have created uncertainty about how the U.S. plans to proceed. Media reports and public comments by Trump indicated that the administration was interested in reopening negotiations with Tehran, but over the last week, Trump has gradually amped up threats of a military strike against Iran amid continued intransigence from Tehran. 

Graham said that the Islamic Republic should accept any offers of diplomacy from the U.S., but that he’s not surprised the regime hasn’t been amenable, describing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “religious Nazi.”

He expects that a U.S. campaign would involve “enough lethality to make the people who live without fear live with fear, to make those who are killing the people … wonder if maybe they’ll wake up dead tomorrow.” He said the U.S. would also maintain economic pressure on Iran.

“If whatever we do doesn’t inspire the people and put some fear in the regime, we’ve made a mistake,” he continued.

Still, he emphasized that he does not expect a U.S. invasion of Iran.

Graham rejected concerns that Khamenei could be replaced by someone equally radical if removed from power.

“Most likely, the day after in Iran, if the ayatollah falls, is a long road back to a more accommodating Iran that wants to be prosperous,” Graham said. “Why would you double down on the things that got you in this? … Now, it won’t be Jeffersonian democracy, but it’ll be something we can live with.”

The GOP senator also said that he supports the approach in a post-regime Iran outlined Wednesday by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which would likely involve a transfer of power to others inside the Iranian government, potentially within its military, if the ayatollah falls — akin to the approach the U.S. took in Venezuela.

“We’re not going to do the Iraq thing where we fire everybody,” Graham said. “We’re going to trust the people taking over to understand that the old ways have got to go. If you want to perpetuate the old ways, you’re not going to make it. … To the people taking over in Iran, if you act like the ayatollah, we’ll bomb you too.”

Graham, together with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), introduced legislation on Thursday, the Save the Kurds Act, that aims to largely re-implement the Caesar Act sanctions on Syria, repealed by Congress in December amid pressure from the Trump administration.

Graham was a longstanding skeptic of unconditional sanctions relief, without snapback measures, for the Syrian regime, and the new legislation comes in response to advances on territory run by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the U.S.’ primary allies in Syria in the war against ISIS.

In a reversal of current U.S. policy, the bill would sanction Syrian government officials and financial institutions, and any foreign individuals who engage in any transaction with the Syrian government, as well as re-designating Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the faction that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa led, as a terrorist organization.

The administration would be able to suspend the sanctions if the Syrian government stops all attacks on the SDF, but would be required to immediately reimpose them if attacks resume.

Softening his rhetoric from earlier in the week, Graham told JI he’s optimistic that Saudi Arabia wants to deal as an honest broker to decrease tensions between al-Sharaa’s government and the Kurds — something he said was not the case with Turkey — and urged Saudi officials to maintain that approach. 

He said that he’s very concerned about al-Sharaa, after he “gave him a chance,” warning that failing to protect the Kurds would ultimately lead to a situation in Syria as bad or worse than under the former Assad regime.

“If we let radical Arab groups and [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan eliminate the Kurds, nobody would ever follow America again,” Graham warned. “‘One Syria’ cannot be accomplished through the threat of the gun.”

Graham made waves in Washington and Jerusalem earlier this month with comments that he wanted to quickly wind down U.S. aid to Israel, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he wants to wean the Jewish state off of U.S. financial assistance in the next decade.

He promptly traveled to Israel to discuss the matter of future U.S. aid and Israel’s plans for Iran with Netanyahu and top Israeli defense officials. Following a meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem, tensions seem to have cooled, with Graham saying he “understand[s] better what he’s saying” despite the two not being totally aligned.

He said that his concern has been that U.S. aid to Israel has been a strong investment that has paid dividends for the U.S., while Netanyahu is concerned with being perceived as a burden on the U.S. — though Graham maintained that ending aid will do nothing to placate anti-Israel voices in the U.S.

Graham said that Netanyahu had a “very, I think, clever way of modernizing the weapons systems to our mutual benefit that’s different than aid, so I was impressed,” adding, “I’d like to be a partner with” Israel’s technological developments.

Many analysts believe that the future of U.S.-Israel cooperation lies more in co-produced and jointly developed programs than in direct financial assistance from the U.S. to Israel, and such programs have been growing in recent years.

Tensions are running high across the Middle East after a week in which the U.S. and Iran lobbed threats at each other, dominating headlines, destabilizing markets and leaving many in the region unnerved at the prospect of renewed military action seven months after the 12-day war between Israel and Iran that included U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, yesterday, Trump warned that an “armada” was on its way to the Gulf — a reference to the aircraft carrier and fleet of fighter jets being redeployed from the South China Sea.

In response, Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned that Iran had its “finger on the trigger, more prepared than ever, ready to carry out the orders and measures of the supreme commander-in-chief.”  

Trump, true to form, has been unpredictable and inconsistent in his approach to Tehran — alternating between threatening force and teasing diplomacy. “Iran does want to talk, and we’ll talk,” Trump said at a signing ceremony in Davos on Thursday, just hours before he told reporters on Air Force One about the naval deployment to the Gulf. “We have a massive fleet heading in that direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it,” he said on AF1, managing in one whiplash-inducing sentence to lob a threat at Iran while also offering it a theoretical off-ramp.

The president has proven that he is willing to engage in bold action — especially when it comes to Iran. One has only to look to the 2020 killing of Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani or the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June to see that the Trump administration is willing to engage militarily with Iran in ways prior administrations may have not. (Case in point: former President Joe Biden’s issuance in April 2024 of a one-word warning to Iran — “Don’t” — a day before Tehran launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel.)

More recently, the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro demonstrates that the Trump administration isn’t opposed to regime change. And indeed, that was a possibility the president has mulled vis-a-vis Tehran, telling Politico last weekend that it was “time to look for new leadership in Iran.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s inner circle and key allies are split over how to approach Iran. White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has been a vocal backer of using diplomacy to quell tensions with Tehran.

“Iran needs to change its ways,” Witkoff told Bloomberg on Wednesday in Davos. “They need to do that. And if they do, if they indicate that they’re willing to do that, I think we can diplomatically settle this.”

Witkoff additionally expressed disappointment that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had been removed from the agenda at Davos after quietly being added last week, saying he had been “looking forward to meeting [Araghchi], because we have to build that communication channel, because the alternative to that is not a good alternative.”

Hours after Witkoff’s comments, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) posted a thinly veiled reference to the White House envoy, saying he was “unnerved by statements being made by people involved in the Iran file suggesting that if the ayatollah could change his ways, we might be able to reach an agreement with the regime.”

“Anyone who believes that the ayatollah is remotely interested in changing his ways does not understand the history of the ayatollah and the murderous regime,” Graham continued. “That’s the same as believing someone could have done a deal with Hitler.”

Within Iran, there are still hopes that U.S. action will topple Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Economist notes a joke making the rounds among Iranian civil servants: “We used to worry we’d become Venezuela. Now we worry we won’t.”

Heading into the weekend with tensions still high, those who have to live with the consequences of the continuation of the Iranian regime — from the Iranians who have faced years of repression to the Israelis preparing their bomb shelters for the next war to people across the region whose lives have been upended by Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Gaza — will be watching closely for any signal from Trump and his top advisors about Washington’s next moves, and their reverberations around the world.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he hopes no military action will be needed in Iran, but stopped short of ruling it out as the U.S. continues to move military assets to the Middle East.

“We hope there’s not going to be further [military] action,” Trump said during an interview with CNBC on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, while alluding to the fact that it still might be a possibility given Tehran’s conduct in suppressing nationwide demonstrations. “But you know, [the regime is] shooting people indiscriminately in the streets.”

The president has previously called the Iranian regime’s killing of protesters a “red line” and vowed to protesters that “help is on its way.” Trump repeated his claim on Wednesday that Iranian authorities had planned to hang 837 protesters last week, but “canceled it” after he warned them not to.

Trump has thus far refrained from authorizing military action against Iran — even as the U.S. has continued to move military assets to the Middle East in preparation for potential escalation, with reports indicating that the Pentagon has relocated more F-15 fighter jets to the region in recent days. 

When asked by CNBC’s Joe Kernen whether people should “stay tuned” on Iran, Trump was noncommittal: “I guess — I mean, look, it’s a rough place,” he said.

White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, also at Davos, told Bloomberg News that diplomatic engagement remains possible if Tehran changes course.

“Iran needs to change its ways,” Witkoff said. “If they indicate that they’re willing to do that, I think we can diplomatically settle this.” But asked if he believes Iran wants to take the diplomatic path, Witkoff said, “We don’t have that sense yet.”

Still, the president noted that if Tehran were to continue pursuing nuclear capabilities, an attack similar to the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last June is “going to happen again.” 

“They keep experimenting with nuclear, and, you know, at some point they’re going to get the idea that they can’t do that,” he said.

Middle East policy experts argued on Wednesday that the United States should actively intervene in Iran’s unrest — including through cyber measures, economic pressure and potentially military strikes — amid the regime’s crackdown on nationwide protests. The comments were made during a program hosted by Iran International, one of the largest independent Persian-language news outlets in the world.

President Donald Trump has for days issued repeated warnings to the regime that the U.S. is “watching closely” and that Iran would “pay hell” for killing protesters. On Wednesday afternoon, however, the president said he had been notified that the “killing in Iran is stopping” and that Iran would not be conducting executions of protesters, as was expected, and downplayed the severity of protester deaths.

“The first thing I would recommend is that we use our very impressive capabilities to shut down the communication system for the government,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, speaking of a potential retaliation for the regime’s decision to cut internet access to the public. “This will be a huge step.”

Satloff said if that did not work, he would then support subsequent U.S. strikes on Iranian military infrastructure.

“If that first act does not bring about a substantial change in Iranian behavior, then I would target very specifically the barracks and the facilities of the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps],” said Satloff. 

Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former diplomat in the Middle East, argued that any U.S. intervention in Iran should not be a “one-off military strike,” but rather a sustained “campaign” of economic and political pressure. 

Rayburn was tapped by the White House to be assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in February 2025, however, his nomination was ultimately pulled last October. 

“We have to use all of the tools at our disposal,” Rayburn said Wednesday. “There’s no reason not to be fully implementing maximum pressure to pressure the Iranian regime in order to change its behavior.” 

Responding to questions about whether a weak Iranian regime — in the midst of dire economic and political challenges — can survive the protests, Rayburn suggested it is bound to fall, stating that there will be a “day after this Khamenei regime,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, and that he believes that day will come “sooner rather than later.”

“The Iranian regime is going to collapse at some point in the not-too-distant future,” said Rayburn. “[It] can no longer function as a state. The last function they can perform is to use violence against their own people. That means they are not a sustainable regime.” 

Tehran has threatened to respond to any military action with retaliation against the U.S. and Israel. Satloff said the fall of the regime would be “an enormous strategic gain for Israel,” but noted that Jerusalem is “playing it quiet.” 

“The Israelis have made at least the tactical decision, that since Donald Trump has been out front, that Donald Trump has drawn a line in the sand, let Donald Trump be the key actor right now,” said Satloff. “There is no comparative advantage for Israel to be out in front in any military fashion. Let the United States play this role, the president seems to have embraced it.”

He also cast doubt on the likelihood that Tehran would strike Israel in response to U.S. action. Reports have indicated that Iran and Israel have conveyed reassurances through Russian intermediaries that neither side intends to carry out a preemptive strike.

“If the Iranians make the mistake of retaliating against Israel or Israeli assets, or Jewish assets around the world, there will be a very high price to pay,” said Satloff. 

Analysts also weighed in on reports that Gulf allies have been lobbying the Trump administration to refrain from striking or intervening in Iran, warning that a U.S. intervention could be ineffective and expose them to retaliation. While the analysts acknowledged those concerns, they argued that regional governments would ultimately like to see the regime fall.

“I don’t think there are any major frontline countries in the Gulf region that believe that the Iranian regime is a regime that they can live with indefinitely,” said Rayburn. “We have not seen real restraint from the Arab capitals to either U.S. or Israeli pressure against the Iranian regime. All of those capitals would be better off without the regime.”

Regardless of whether the U.S. intervenes, Satloff emphasized that any outcome is “ultimately an Iranian process and an Iranian decision.”

“This will be their [the Iranian people’s] revolution, if it happens,” said Satloff. “It will not be something that we trigger or engineer, but to help them to be able to assert their own wishes and desires for the future.”

At the conclusion of the 12-day war in June of last year, both Israel and Iran suspected that the ceasefire brokered by the U.S. would be a pause, not a final cessation of hostilities. That truce has lasted for more than six months, with both sides wary of entering another military conflict — one likely to be more deadly and destructive than the first. 

But now, amid destabilizing world events from Venezuela to the Middle East — compounded by growing domestic pressure on the Islamic Republic amid nationwide protests — that ceasefire is even more tenuous, with officials in Tehran and Jerusalem closely watching the other’s every move, careful not to make a potentially disastrous miscalculation — even as both sides make overtures at de-escalation.

Speaking at the Knesset on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “President [Donald] Trump and I have expressed a firm stance — we won’t allow Iran to rebuild its ballistic missile industry or to renew the nuclear program, which we damaged severely in Operation Rising Lion.”

In response, Iran’s newly formed Defense Council warned on Tuesday that the country could act preemptively if it detects clear signs of a threat. “The long-standing enemies of this land … are pursuing a targeted approach by repeating and intensifying threatening language and interventionist statements in clear conflict with the accepted principles of international law, which is aimed at dismembering our beloved Iran and harming the country’s identity,” the council said.

Recent reports suggest that Israel, in an attempt to de-escalate tensions, has used Moscow as an intermediary, communicating through Russian President Vladimir Putin that it has no intention of launching a preemptive strike on Iranian soil. Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are unconvinced. 

In a post on X, Khamenei accused Israel of deception: “What makes the enemy first request a ceasefire during [12-day] war with the Iranian nation, then send messages saying he doesn’t want to fight us?” 

“Now if he doesn’t believe the messaging and thinks that Israel is about to attack then you can understand why Israel is worried Iran is about to miscalculate and attack. Very tense days/weeks ahead of us,” Nadav Pollak, a lecturer on the Middle East at Reichman University, commented on Khamenei’s post.

Pollak told Jewish Insider that he sees the perception gaps between Israel and Iran as the “No. 1 risk for miscalculation. As we’ve seen from Khamenei’s tweet, he doesn’t believe the messages that came from Jerusalem about Israel not planning to attack. In his mind, Bibi just came back from Washington with Trump supporting action against Iran if some red lines are crossed. Bibi also continues to talk about the Iranian ballistic missile threat every week and that Israel will need to do something.”

Israeli commentator Nadav Eyal noted on Dan Senor’s “Call Me Back” podcast that “Israeli security officials are extremely worried about what’s happening vis-a-vis Iran, first and foremost because the Iranians are so tense and they are constantly fearing an Israeli attack themselves. So their first worry is miscalculation … If Iran senses that Israel might attack, it wants to preempt that. If Israel thinks that Iran is going to do that, it would want to preempt that.”

Tehran is also facing trouble at home, amid protests that have spread across the country over the last two weeks. The growing unrest, coupled with the Islamic Republic’s economic and climate woes, has put added pressure on the ayatollahs.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told JI that due to the Iranian regime’s vulnerable position amid nationwide protests over a severe economic crisis, “hardliners” within the IRGC could be weighing using a strike to “divert the public” and create national unity. However, he expressed that the decision would be a “strategic mistake,” suggesting that an Iranian strike this year is “highly unlikely.”

“It’s hard to see what the Iranians would gain,” said Miller. “A strike is simply going to wreak additional havoc on what the vast majority of the Iranian public is protesting against, which is inflation, a devaluation of the Iranian currency.”

Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed those sentiments, adding that any Iranian strike now while the regime in Tehran is “on the ropes” would be “suicidal.” 

“It seems unlikely that Iran would choose this moment to attack Israel,” said Misztal. “While it certainly might be looking for some way to distract its citizens from their grievances, all the evidence suggests that external aggression would have the opposite effect.”

Misztal said the Iranian regime is facing skyrocketing inflation and crumbling infrastructure “because it has chosen guns over butter and Iranians know it.” 

“To once again pick up guns would only further inflame Iranians’ rightful anger,” said Misztal. “Not to mention that a direct Iranian attack against Israel would surely invite a devastating Israeli, if not also American, response.”

The lingering question is whether the fear of miscalculation will push either side toward action.

Saudi Arabia is recalibrating its regional posture in ways that are challenging long-held assumptions about Riyadh’s role as a moderating force in the Middle East, as recent moves across Yemen, Sudan and the Horn of Africa expose the country’s widening rift with the United Arab Emirates and a growing alignment with Qatar and Turkey — two countries with openly hostile positions toward Israel.

The realignment has been most stark on the issue of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia led an airstrike on an Emirati shipment of vehicles on Tuesday which Riyadh claimed was intended for the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC), which has consolidated power in the country’s south as Saudi-backed efforts to stabilize the war-torn nation have stalled. Hours after the strike, the Emirati government announced it would withdraw its remaining troops from the country.

The Saudis’ decision to embrace Islamist-aligned factions in Sudan, where the UAE is aligned with rival forces, has caused additional fissures with the Emiratis, putting the two U.S. allies and Gulf power players at odds. 

The Gulf states have also taken opposite sides on Somalia, with the UAE quietly supportive of Somaliland, while Saudi Arabia condemned Israel for recognizing its independence and Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the move threatened the chances of Riyadh and Jerusalem establishing diplomatic relations. 

These actions, taken together, have raised questions about Riyadh’s role as a moderating force in the region and potential partner for normalization with Israel.

“Yes, Saudi Arabia is moving away from its position of recent years,” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider on Tuesday. “Since [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] came to power, he promised drastic change under the banner of ‘Saudi First.’”

Abdul-Hussain said that Saudi Arabia is “abandoning its past policy and distancing itself from the UAE and the moderate capitals and getting closer to Islamist Qatar and Turkey. … How far on the scale of Islamism the Saudis decide to go remains to be seen.” 

“There have been two alliances competing in the region: A radical Islamist one led by Turkey and Qatar and allied with Iran and Pakistan and a moderate one led by Israel and UAE and allied with India, Greece and Cyprus,” Abdul-Hussain said. “While America has friends on both sides, it is clear that American national interests are served by taking the side of Israel, the UAE, India and Greece coalition against the rival axis.”

Nervana Mahmoud, a political commentator based in the U.K., told JI that while “it’s very difficult to read the strategic decisions within the kingdom because they don’t announce plans … I noticed a shift in the Saudi [posture] from mid-2024.”

Mahmoud said that the Saudi-UAE divergence has also expanded because of the Saudi’s softened stance on Qatar, something she argued reflects the kingdom’s acknowledgement of Doha’s growing influence both in the region and globally, specifically pointing to Qatar’s positive standing with the Trump administration. 

“I see the Saudis saying, ‘We cannot defeat the Islamists, but we can influence [them], using them for strategic influence,’” Nervana Mahmoud, a political commentator based in the U.K., told JI. “They think they can influence Islamists rather than be fooled by them. Before Islamists were infiltrating Saudi, now Saudi thinks [they’re] powerful enough to influence and tame them to serve strategic interests. I see that as wishful thinking.”

Saudi Arabia has improved ties with Qatar, ending a blockade on Doha in 2021 and signing a deal earlier this month to link Riyadh and Doha with a high-speed rail. 

The UAE, meanwhile, has expressed concerns over Doha’s influence in Trump’s Gaza peace plan, including its potential role in post-war Gaza, as well as Qatar’s Islamist ties. 

“I see the Saudis saying, ‘We cannot defeat the Islamists, but we can influence [them], using them for strategic influence,’” Mahmoud told JI. “They think they can influence Islamists rather than be fooled by them. Before Islamists were infiltrating Saudi, now Saudi thinks [they’re] powerful enough to influence and tame them to serve strategic interests. I see that as wishful thinking.”

Mahmoud pointed to Saudi Arabia’s engagement in Syria where Riyadh has supported efforts to rehabilitate Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and encourage engagement with the Trump administration, despite Al-Sharaa’s Islamist background. Israel, meanwhile, has taken a more suspicious view of al-Sharaa and has thus far failed to secure a security agreement with Damascus. 

Another cause for concern has been the Saudis’ reticence to engage on joining the Abraham Accords, despite publicly expressing willingness to normalize relations with Israel on condition of the establishment of a pathway to Palestinian statehood and a ceasefire in Gaza. 

“Since 9/11, and especially since MBS came to power in 2015, Saudi Arabia made enormous effort to distance itself away from Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism,” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said. Now, “Saudi is getting closer to all Islamist, anti-Israel, anti-West governments, whether it’s Iran and Pakistan or Qatar and Turkey.”

Mahmoud accused Riyadh of “playing the game” on the normalization issue, saying that the kingdom had continued to signal interest in joining the Abraham Accords while “always [having] an excuse not to.”

“The excuses will never end,” Mahmoud told JI of the Saudis, adding that the kingdom was “trying to be on the good side of [President Donald] Trump.”

Riyadh’s shift away from moderate Gulf states has also been marked by diverging views on how to approach the Muslim Brotherhood. While Qatar has long sponsored the Islamist movement’s actions, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have historically taken a harsher stance against the group, proscribing it as a terrorist organization, aligned with the Trump administration’s recent moves to do the same. 

“There was a period from 2017 to 2021 where the Saudis, Emiratis and Bahrainis completely isolated Qatar because they considered the Qataris as sponsoring the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood meant harm to the political systems in Saudi and UAE and Bahrain,” Edmun Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former British diplomat who served in Kuwait, told JI. 

Abdul-Hussain argued that there has been “some reversal” on Saudi Arabia’s reputation as a moderate actor on the brotherhood, creating a potentially concerning landscape for Israel and dampening efforts toward normalization.

“Since 9/11, and especially since MBS came to power in 2015, Saudi Arabia made enormous effort to distance itself away from Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism,” Abdul-Hussain said. Now, “Saudi is getting closer to all Islamist, anti-Israel, anti-West governments, whether it’s Iran and Pakistan or Qatar and Turkey.”

Senior Pentagon officials are reportedly weighing a sweeping proposal to reorganize the U.S. military that would shift authorities and resources away from the Middle East, a move experts warn could undermine U.S.-Israel security cooperation and destabilize the region.

The plan, driven by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, would reduce the number of U.S. combatant commands from 11 to eight, cut the number of four-star generals and consolidate regional commands into broader organizations. Most notably, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) — which oversees the Middle East and parts of South Asia — would be placed under a newly created U.S. International Command.

CENTCOM has long served as the backbone of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, overseeing operations ranging from efforts to stabilize Gaza to the recent U.S. strikes in Syria and June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

In January 2021, Israel was moved into CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, placing the Jewish state within a U.S.-led regional framework aimed at countering Iran and deepening military integration with Arab partners. Senior commanders have maintained frequent engagement with Israeli defense officials on regional threats, including this past weekend, when reports indicated that Israeli officials notified the head of U.S. Central Command that an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile exercise could signal preparations for a strike on Israel. 

But despite looming threats in the region, the Trump administration’s strategy would shift military focus and resources toward the Western Hemisphere.

“The reported shift in U.S. combatant command organization reflects the Trump administration’s priorities as laid out in the 2025 National Security Strategy,” said Alexander Gray, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “With the administration’s focus on the Indo-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere, it is fitting that it would similarly align combatant commands to reflect its priorities: While Africa, Europe, and Central Command could be combined, Indo-Pacific Command and Southern Command would remain standalone, reflecting the NSS’ regions of focus.”

Gray said that despite a potential reorganization, U.S. defense cooperation with Israel is “unlikely to be impacted,” noting that the structure places an emphasis on “bilateral relationships most essential to U.S. interests,” which he says would benefit Israel. 

However, other experts warned that dismantling or downgrading CENTCOM will not only impact U.S. interests and alignment with Israel in the region, but risks unraveling years of progress.

“Significantly downsizing resources and personnel from the region in an effort to withdraw from the Middle East is only going to cause problems down the road,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israel Policy Forum. “Ensuring that the Middle East builds upon the integration stemming from the Abraham Accords and efforts to realize initiatives requires a focused and well-helmed regional command.”

“If the reorganization happens, it will have detrimental effects on Israel and the wider region,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israel Policy Forum. “The Middle East presents unique challenges stemming from Iranian efforts to upend the regional order and the importance of protecting sea lanes and trade routes. Treating the region as one component of a larger command risks harming U.S. goals.”

Koplow warned that such a move would mean “less high-level interaction with regional partners” which would put cooperation between the U.S. and Israel “at risk.” He also cautioned that a U.S. exit would provide “an opening to Iran, or China, capitalizing on the vacuum” in the Middle East. 

“Significantly downsizing resources and personnel from the region in an effort to withdraw from the Middle East is only going to cause problems down the road,” said Koplow. “Ensuring that the Middle East builds upon the integration stemming from the Abraham Accords and efforts to realize initiatives requires a focused and well-helmed regional command.”

Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed these concerns, saying that such a plan would have reverberations beyond shared cooperation. He noted that CENTCOM plays an important role in leveraging regional partnerships and putting together a defensive coalition of Middle Eastern countries — key to countering Iranian aggression.

“If we assume that the proposals go into effect, and we get rid of CENTCOM, or subsume it into some sort of larger combating command, it’s entirely feasible that a lot of those benefits will be lost, and a lot of the progress that has been made over the past five years will be reversed,” said Misztal, referring to the timeframe in which Israel joined CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. 

Misztal raised concerns about the proposal’s objective to decrease the number of four-star generals and admirals who report directly to Hegseth, which would see CENTCOM’s command status downgraded and remove its four-star authority. 

“Whoever would be responsible for the Middle East would no longer be a four-star general. A lot of what has been accomplished by CENTCOM has been accomplished by the fact that it is commanded by a four-star general,” Misztal said, noting that such leaders bring prestige and influence into the region. “If you do not have a four-star [general] in charge of a combat and command with the resources and authorities that come along with that, even if you have the same level of coordination and cooperation, they might not be able to allocate the resources that would be needed to achieve those same policy objectives.” 

Misztal added that such a move would also “take away the perception of the U.S. caring about the Middle East,” which he said would hurt U.S. posture in the region and benefit Iran.

“A lot of the U.S.-Israel relationship is being managed personally between President [Donald] Trump and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, or by [White House Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, and presumably that part of the relationship would not change, regardless of what happens on the security side,” said Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But affecting policies where it comes to bringing U.S. military power to bear might be more challenging.”

“When [Arab partners] perceive that there’s a flagging of U.S. interest or involvement in the region, they turn away, they strike deals with Iran, they reach out to Russia or China, or make their own security arrangements,” said Misztal. “It sets in motion the possibility for a lot of our partners to walk away from the cooperative security arrangements that have been built both with the United States and with Israel.”

Experts emphasized that any proposed change to CENTCOM would not necessarily signal a shift in U.S. policy toward Israel. However, Misztal said it could become more difficult for the U.S. to execute military policy in the region and provide the same level of support moving forward.  

“A lot of the U.S.-Israel relationship is being managed personally between President [Donald] Trump and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, or by [White House Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, and presumably that part of the relationship would not change, regardless of what happens on the security side,” said Misztal. “But affecting policies where it comes to bringing U.S. military power to bear might be more challenging.”

Specifics of the proposal remain limited and few details have been shared with Congress, according to reports. The changes would require approval from both Hegseth and Trump. In the event the plan were to move forward, Misztal said he could envision a scenario in which a smaller Middle East-focused structure remains within a broader command.

“Without more detail as to what is being planned, it’s hard to know entirely what will happen,” said Misztal. “It is possible that in some new combatant command there will remain a sub-command that is focused on the Middle East, that can continue to try to focus on the threats, like we’ve seen with ISIS and Syria over the past week, or focus on Iran more broadly, or continued cooperation with Israel on ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza.” 

The Columbia University task force overseeing efforts to combat antisemitism on campus released its fourth and final report on Tuesday, spotlighting Columbia’s lack of full-time Middle East faculty who are not explicitly anti-Zionist.

According to the report, “Columbia lacks full-time tenure line faculty expertise in Middle East history, politics, political economy and policy that is not explicitly anti-Zionist.” The absence of ideological diversity is having an impact on course offerings — in listening sessions, the task force said it heard from students that classes at the university more often than not treat Zionism as entirely illegitimate. 

The report calls on the university to “work quickly to add more intellectual diversity to these offerings” and to “establish new chairs at a senior level in Middle East history, politics, political economy and policy.” 

Furthermore, it claims that “academic resources available for teaching and research on Jewish and Israeli topics at Columbia are insufficient, especially in comparison to the resources available for teaching and research on other parts of the Middle East. The University should work quickly and energetically to build up its capabilities here, through academically first-rate full time tenure line additions to the faculty and the curriculum.” 

The report also cites numerous instances in which the academic freedom of Jewish and Israeli students was not protected in classrooms and suggests remedies — while trying to find a delicate balance between allowing for free expression and cracking down on discrimination.

“We urge the University to protect freedom of expression to the maximum extent possible while also complying with antidiscrimination laws,” states the report, titled The Classroom Experience at Columbia: Protecting the Academic Freedom of Faculty and Students. “Censorship has no place at Columbia. Neither does discrimination.”

Columbia University Acting President Claire Shipman said in a statement on Tuesday that the university will “continue to work on implementing the recommendations of the task force and addressing antisemitism on our campus.”

“We have also been working this semester to focus on discrimination and hate more broadly on our campuses — which has long been a strong recommendation of the task force. All of this work must become part of our DNA,” said Shipman. 

Columbia’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism was formed in November 2023 as a response to a surge of antisemitism on campus that began as an immediate response to the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel. Throughout the following two years of war in Gaza, scenes of masked anti-Israel protesters barging into classrooms and hourslong demonstrations in the center of campus calling for an “intifada revolution” became commonplace at Columbia, which has faced some of the worst antisemitic incidents of any college campus since Oct. 7. 

The new report is the first one released since Columbia reached a deal with the Trump administration in July to restore some $400 million in federal funding. 

The funding was frozen by the government in March due to the university’s record dealing with antisemitism. The campus has seen less turbulence since the deal was struck and reforms aimed at combating antisemitism — some based on the task force’s earlier recommendations — were announced over the summer.  

The 13-member task force, which is led by by Ester Fuchs, professor of international and public affairs and political science; Nicholas Lemann, professor of journalism and dean emeritus of Columbia Journalism School; and David Schizer, professor of law and economics and dean emeritus of Columbia Law School, suggested a range of free expression and anti-discrimination policies that Columbia could adopt.

Among the recommendations are that the university disclose, before students enroll in a course, if the material has the potential to cause students to feel excluded or silenced. If students are not aware in advance, or if it is a required course, and a controversial topic — such as the Middle East — is not the stated topic, “it’s not appropriate to make it a central part of the course,” the report states.  

The authors write that academic freedom “entails openness to scholars and students from other countries.” As such, the report states that boycotts of faculty, students, researchers or scholars from other countries “are not consistent with academic freedom.” The academic boycott movement consistently targets Israel, “proposing to restrict the research, teaching, and studying opportunities available to a cohort whose members are overwhelmingly Jewish,” the report continues. Student protesters at Columbia have frequently demanded that the university end its partnership with Tel Aviv University.   

In addition, the task force calls for consistency across all university anti-discrimination policies to include Jewish and Israeli students and for applying anti-discrimination policies in regards to classroom disruptions targeting students or instructors for their identity in a protected class.

The latest report builds upon a series of earlier ones released by the antisemitism task force in March 2024, August 2024 and June 2025, each offering solutions to a different key issue impacting Jewish students at the Ivy League university. Each report was based in part on two dozen listening sessions the task force conducted with hundreds of Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia. 

The 70-page fourth and final report includes recommendations from the three prior reports and recaps several of the most egregious incidents of antisemitism in the classroom at Columbia since Oct. 7. Those include reports of several instructors encouraging their students, during class, to participate in the 2023-24 academic year’s anti-Israel protests. Some professors held their classes or office hours within anti-Israel encampments (where in several cases it was indicated Zionists were not welcome).

Editor’s note: After publication, Columbia’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism updated language in the report to read: “Columbia would benefit from full-time tenure line faculty expertise in Middle East history, politics, political economy and policy that is not explicitly anti-Zionist.”

Following a visit to Turkey on his inaugural international trip last week, Pope Leo XIV lauded Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his peacemaking abilities and said Turkey has “an important role that it could play” in advancing peace in the Middle East and effectuating a two-state solution. 

“I spoke about this with President Erdogan,” Leo said, referring to a two-state solution, which he called the “only” solution to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reaffirming the Holy See’s longstanding position on the issue. 

“Unfortunately we still haven’t seen a solution,” Leo told reporters upon departing from Istanbul. “We know that in this moment, Israel doesn’t accept [a two-state] solution, but we see it as the only one that can offer a solution to the conflict that they are living in.” 

Erdogan “is certainly in agreement with this proposal,” Leo said.

The pope’s comments and decision to share pleasantries with the Turkish leader have struck some in the pro-Israel community as out of touch and are part a pattern of recent remarks from the Vatican that have been critical of Israel, most notably in its handling of the war against Hamas in Gaza.  

In October, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Holy See’s secretary of state, described Israel’s conduct in Gaza as an “inhuman massacre” — language Leo later endorsed. In November 2024, the late Pope Francis called for an investigation into whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide.

Leo’s remarks came after the pope spent three days in Turkey, meeting with leaders of Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches to commemorate the 1,700th anniversary of a gathering of bishops in A.D. 325 in present-day Iznik, Turkey. He arrived in Beirut on Sunday for the second leg of his trip, and addressed politicians and religious leaders, including Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at the presidential palace.

Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the pontiff’s comments on Turkey “odd,” adding that his intentions were likely to “flatter his hosts but have little connection to reality.”

“At the outset of the war in Gaza, the Turkish government could have used its good offices with Hamas and Israel to play a constructive role helping to bring hostages home and bringing about an end to hostilities.” said Cook. “Erdogan chose an entirely different approach that offered significant political and diplomatic support to Hamas, demonized Israel, and [Turkey] was the first country to impose an economic boycott on Israel over the war.”

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, echoed those sentiments, calling the pope’s comments “flawed” and “fantasy.” However, he noted that popes have a “record of being idealists.” 

“One thing that Leo is probably trying to do is he seems to be much more interested in promoting the potential to pursue any avenue towards establishing peace where he sees conflict,” said Ciddi. “[The pope has] probably been advised that the Turks have sort of demonstrated ability to be a mediator in the Ukraine-Russia conflict … and Turkey is a Muslim country that is able to speak to Hamas and is an ally of the United States … so why not essentially go after that, as opposed to labeling it as a supporter of terrorism.”

The Vatican has long advocated for a two-state framework, formally recognizing a Palestinian state in 2015. But the pope’s renewed push comes as the Israel-Hamas war intensified international pressure on Jerusalem to accept such a model. Earlier this year, several countries — including France, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada — formally recognized a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained his opposition to a Palestinian state, a position that’s shared by a significant majority of the Israeli public in the aftermath of Oct. 7.

The pontiff noted to reporters that the Vatican is “friends with Israel” and seeks to “be a mediating voice that can help bring them closer to a solution with justice for all.” 

Ciddi told Jewish Insider that while Erdogan has been “relentless” in calling upon the pope to condemn Israel, Leo “has ignored that.” 

After his inauguration in May, Leo said that dialogue with the Jewish community is “close to my heart.” 

“Because of the Jewish roots of Christianity, all Christians have a special relationship with Judaism,” the pope said in May. “Theological dialogue between Christians and Jews remains always important and is very close to my heart.”

During his recent trip, Leo indicated a willingness to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s crucifixion in Jerusalem in 2033. 

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who is among the most vocal Democratic supporters of Israel in the House, will serve as the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East and North Africa subcommittee beginning Friday, replacing Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) following her indictment earlier this week.

As per House Democratic rules, Cherfilus-McCormick surrendered her subcommittee leadership role after being indicted by the Justice Department this week, on allegations that she used misallocated federal disaster funds for personal expenses and to support her campaign.

Sherman was the most senior Democrat on the subcommittee. He had previously declined to pursue leadership of the subcommittee given that he is also the top Democrat on a House Financial Services subcommittee, and would have needed to surrender that post. 

But Democratic rules now allow him to temporarily hold both leadership posts concurrently; Cherfilus-McCormick will resume the Foreign Affairs role if she is acquitted or charges are dropped.

“My views on the Middle East are well known to the readers of Jewish Insider,” Sherman told JI. “I am pleased to serve as the chief Democrat on the House-Knesset Parliamentary Friendship Group and as a Co-Chair of the House Israel Allies Caucus. I particularly want to focus on making sure that any Saudi nuclear program does not lead to a Saudi nuclear weapon. Likewise, I’m concerned about the possibility of transferring F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia.”

Democratic leadership on the subcommittee has been through repeated changes in recent years. Sherman is the fifth Democrat to lead it since 2022: former Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) stepped down when he retired from Congress to lead the American Jewish Committee, former Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) also stepped down when he left Congress in 2023 and Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) declined to run for re-election in 2024.

Senate lawmakers from both parties on the Armed Services Committee excoriated the Department of Defense policy office run by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby at a Tuesday hearing. They criticized the office for a lack of communication with lawmakers as well as a series of controversial decisions seemingly at odds with White House policy.

Lawmakers expressed frustration that they had not received sufficient communication from the Pentagon’s policy office and criticized Colby and his team for making controversial decisions like pausing U.S. aid to Ukraine, opposing the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during Israel’s war against Iran, withdrawing U.S. forces from Romania and re-assessing the AUKUS submarine agreement with the U.K. and Australia.

Democrats have publicly voiced frustration with Colby’s alleged rogue decision-making in the past, but the committee meeting — a confirmation hearing for several civilian Pentagon officials — constituted an unusual public airing of grievances from Republicans and Democrats alike about their concerns with Colby and his office.

“It just seems like there’s this pig-pen like mess coming out of the policy shop that you don’t see from [other departments of the Pentagon]. Why do you think it is that there’s so many controversies emanating out of the policy shop and not these other offices in the department?” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Austin Dahmer, the nominee to be assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities — a top position in Colby’s department — who is currently serving in an acting capacity as one of Colby’s chief deputies.

Cotton also serves as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“I’ve noticed an unsettling trend this year at times, that Pentagon officials have pursued policies that are not in accord with President Trump’s orders, or seem uncoordinated within the administration,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, adding that the members of the committee have found out about such moves from press reports rather than the Defense Department.

“There are strong foreign policy debates in my political party. We do not have consensus on every issue and I welcome healthy discussion on America’s role in the world. I think the president does too,” Wicker continued. “Amid these debates, I think everyone would expect the president’s national security strategy staff to follow his lead and implement his vision.”

He added that committee members “have struggled to receive information from the policy office and have not been able to consult in a meaningful way with [the policy office] either on the national defense strategy or the global posture review. … The situation needs to improve if we are to craft the best defense policy.”

A  frustrated Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) described Colby as “the hardest guy to get a hold of in the Trump administration.”

“He came to this committee and said, ‘Hey, I’m going to work with the Congress.’ He hasn’t, on big issues,” Sullivan continued. “I can’t even get a response and we’re on your team.”

Sullivan and other lawmakers expressed particular frustration with the lack of consultation from the administration on the forthcoming national defense strategy and global posture review, which news reports indicate will prioritize the Western hemisphere and domestic missions at the expense of other threats and theaters including China.

Dahmer, a former staffer for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), pleaded ignorance about the controversial moves and lack of communication or claimed that such moves had not happened and that public reporting about them was false.

Regarding the recent drawdown of troops from Romania, Dahmer claimed that lawmakers had been briefed three times prior to the move — but Wicker said that neither the majority nor minority staff had been notified ahead of time about the plans.

“I think all of us would like to have more information on how the decision was made” and communicated to Romania, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, adding that he had more questions for Dahmer about “what the policy office has been doing as compared to the president’s and secretary’s directives and stated policy objectives” and “confusion between what the president and secretary called for versus what the policy office has been doing, from weapons sales and deliveries to troop draw-downs.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the committee’s ranking member, said that Dahmer had “cloaked your testimony in a veil of ignorance, when in fact you were basically the stand in and the surrogate for [Under] Secretary Colby. … You’re clearly avoiding answers to questions that you should have been acutely aware of in your position.”

“I think you’ve essentially indicated to us that you won’t cooperate with us,” Reed continued.

Wicker also criticized the administration for providing notification to Congress on Sunday — days before the confirmation hearing — that it had renamed and changed the duties of the position for which Dahmer is nominated. Reed said that those changes were apparently made a month ago, without notifying Congress.

Alex Velez-Green, another former Hawley staffer nominated for a top Pentagon post under Colby, is scheduled to appear for his own confirmation hearing later this week.

LAS VEGAS — Until last week, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual leadership summit was expected to be a triumphant gathering to celebrate President Donald Trump’s accomplishments in the Middle East, chief among them his administration’s recently brokered ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.

That all changed after Tucker Carlson hosted the neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes on his podcast for a sympathetic interview, provoking fierce backlash. By the time that Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, came to Carlson’s defense on Thursday, the RJC recognized its conference would require a thematic update to more forcefully emphasize the urgency of confronting rising antisemitism — and its enablers — within the GOP.

“If there was ever a time for the RJC, this is our time,” Norm Coleman, the organization’s national chairman, said in opening remarks on Friday. “We have been called to this moment to fight the scourge of antisemitism.”

But even as multiple speakers at the three-day summit held at the Venetian Resort — including congressional leaders, conservative activists and media personalities — alluded to antisemitism in their ranks, many talked in broad strokes, didn’t mention Carlson by name or downplayed the issue as confined to the fringes, despite Carlson and Fuentes each commanding a significant number of dedicated followers on the far right.

The speakers also argued that anti-Jewish hatred had become an endemic problem for Democrats — especially in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks. And in a preview of GOP messaging ahead of the midterms next year, many took aim at Zohran Mamdani, the far-left Democratic nominee for New York City mayor and fierce critic of Israel favored to win the election on Tuesday.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), who is now running for governor of Florida, relied on euphemism to refer to right-wing antisemitism, declaring that the GOP would “not stand idly by” as “some in other parts of politics try to demonize Jewish Americans” and “try to weaken or destroy the relationship between the United States of America and the nation of Israel.”

“I will always call out and confront antisemitism wherever it is and whoever spreads it,” Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI), the House Republican conference chair, said on Saturday, but shared no examples of such prejudice in her own party.

Some, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), more forcefully addressed growing antisemitism on their side of the aisle. 

In an interview with Jewish Insider shortly before he took the stage on Friday, Graham described Carlson’s interview with Fuentes as a “wake-up call” for the Republican Party. “How many times does he have to play footsie with this antisemitic view of the Jewish people and Israel until you figure out that’s what he believes?” Graham said of the former Fox News host. 

But in his speech later, the South Carolina senator adopted a more sanguine attitude, speaking more like a stand-up comedian as he sought to lighten the mood. “I just want to make it really clear: I’m in the ‘Hitler sucks’ wing of the Republican Party,” he said to applause. “What is this Hitler shit?”

“I feel good about the Republican Party,” he added, saying the GOP “has figured it out when it comes to Israel.”

Cruz also criticized Republicans who refuse to disavow right-wing antisemites in the conservative coalition, though he ultimately didn’t mention any of the offending individuals by name in his RJC speech.

McCormick, in his fireside chat with conservative author Douglas Murray, directly confronted the lack of right-wing voices challenging virulent antisemitism. “This very week, you had an avowed antisemite, Fuentes, given a platform. This is a guy that says Hitler is cool, says Jews should be terminated…and those views went unchallenged,” McCormick said. 

In his own speech at the summit, McCormick said: “Let’s face it, antisemitism is running wild on the progressive left and the leaders of the Democratic Party are not confronting it with their new star Mamdani,” McCormick said. “But I’m also sad to say we see that ugliness on the right too, and we must confront it. Jews can’t be slandered, antisemites can’t be given platforms.”

Their comments sidestepped a more deeply rooted challenge for mainstream Republicans following recent controversies in which young party leaders were caught sharing pro-Nazi messages in leaked group chats, and Paul Ingrassia, the controversial Trump ally, withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel after text messages were unearthed where he allegedly made antisemitic and racist remarks. 

Vice President JD Vance also faced criticism from Jewish Republicans last week over his recent appearance at a conservative campus event, where he chose not to confront some students who asked questions that invoked antisemitic tropes. While some attendees at the RJC summit told JI that they had been troubled by Vance’s performance, it was not a topic of discussion on the main stage.

Taking the floor on Saturday, however, Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), a freshman congressman from Florida who is one of four Jewish Republicans in the House, criticized those who focus only on left-wing antisemitism or just broadly talk about anti-Jewish prejudice on the right.

“It’s easy to talk about antisemitism on the left,” Fine said in his remarks. “I want to talk about the dark force rising on our side. Multiple speakers have talked about the rise of antisemitism on the right. But it is not enough to speak in platitudes or generalities about the fight. We must call evil by its name.”

He called Carlson “the most dangerous antisemite in America” and said he did not belong in Trump’s movement — a message that was amplified by a line of student attendees who stood before him holding up posters declaring “Tucker is not MAGA.”

Fine also said that he was canceling a scheduled event with the Heritage Foundation, adding that the group had “no future” in his office. “I will be calling on all of my colleagues on the Republican side to do the same,” he confirmed.

Matt Brooks, the RJC’s CEO, told JI last week that his group would be reassessing its relationship with Heritage, noting that he was “disgusted” by Roberts’ decision to stand with Carlson. The RJC has not yet further clarified how it plans to move forward with regard to Heritage.

As the summit neared its conclusion on Saturday, one RJC member, Jon Tucker of Chicago, voiced optimism that Trump, set to deliver a prerecorded message later that evening, would choose to speak out against what he termed the “ultra-right wing, isolationist” and “anti-Christian Zionist” voices in the Republican Party.

“I would hope the president comes out and has something to say about it, just like Ronald Reagan did back in the ’80s when he, famously, kicked the right wing out of the Republican Party,” he told JI, expressing concern that — in the absence of direct condemnation from the top — “we could lose” the GOP to “radicals.”

When he finally appeared on screen, Trump made no mention of antisemitism’s ascendance within the GOP, instead touting his administration’s efforts to target universities for their alleged failure to address antisemitism while listing his achievements in the Middle East, including the ceasefire deal.

He also credited the RJC with helping him to perform particularly well among Jewish voters in 2024, even as he reiterated his complaint that he should have received more support in light of his pro-Israel policies.

“I can’t imagine we didn’t do better than that after all I’ve done for the Jewish vote, I must be honest with you,” Trump said. “But that’s OK.”

This story was updated on Monday to reflect Sen. Dave McCormick’s comments regarding Nick Fuentes.

Former Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell McCormick said on Tuesday that recent regional reforms and alliances, including the 2020 Abraham Accords, have been instrumental in the Middle East’s development and its response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks and ensuing war in Gaza.

“I think we are moving too fast sometimes, and don’t pause on how critical it is that even after October 7, not one of the signatories of that peace treaty got out,” Powell McCormick said in comments made at the Future Investment Initiative Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. “And I believe it’s thanks to President [Donald] Trump, thanks to Jared Kushner, thanks to [Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff, the reason that we saw the ceasefire happen, the release of the hostages and Inshallah, God-willing, a more stable Gaza so the humanitarian suffering can end.” 

“I think it’s because, in many ways, the seeds were planted to have last week that announcement not just by the United States, but over 50 countries, again, from Egypt and Jordan, the Emiratis, the Qataris, the Turks, the Pakistanis,” Powell McCormick continued. “This is remarkable.”

Powell McCormick, who served in the first Trump administration and is now vice chairman and president of global client services at BDT-MSD, reflected on a trip to the region nearly a decade ago while working for the White House. “I think if you had told us then that nine years later, you would have seen the economic, social and political gains and transformation that we have seen,” she said, “it would have been hard to believe economically … it would have been hard to imagine that this kingdom and this region of the world is now the dominant source of capital for innovation, the dominant source of capital for the change that we’re witnessing in every industry, artificial intelligence, biotech, robotics, longevity.”

Two clashing narratives have emerged about Israel’s strike on a meeting of senior Hamas terrorists in Doha, Qatar, in September, following the release of a preview of an interview with U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program that aired on Sunday evening.

Both narratives posit that the strike hastened the arrival of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to free the hostages and end the war. Figures close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the attack pushed an anxious Qatar, Hamas’ patron and host of its senior officials, to do more to get the terrorist organization across the finish line. 

Trump’s negotiators, however, presented a scenario in which the president, unhappy about the strike, pressured Israel to end the war.  

Of the Israeli strike on Doha, Witkoff said that he and Kushner, who in recent months has also played a key role in the administration’s Middle East efforts, “felt a little bit betrayed.”

Kushner added, “I think [Trump] felt like the Israelis were getting a little bit out of control in what they were doing, and it was time to be very strong and stop them from doing things he thought were not in their long-term interest.”

Witkoff said that Qatar, which served as a key mediator between Hamas and Israel for much of the negotiations, said that, following the strike, “we had lost the confidence of the Qataris, so Hamas went underground. It was very difficult to get to them … and it became very, very evident as to how important, how critical [Qatar’s] role was.” 

Jerusalem, however, had a different version of the events, as told by Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s closest confidante, in an Israel Hayom column by journalist Amit Segal.

Israelis involved in the negotiations viewed Qatar as a “spoiler,” such as when they talked Hamas out of accepting a deal proposed by Egypt earlier in the year, according to Segal. 

Dermer, Segal wrote, “links the strike to the agreement … The Qataris, it turns out, were convinced that by agreeing to host the negotiations, they had obtained immunity from Israeli strikes on their soil. From their perspective, the strike was a blatant, offensive breach of the commitment. … The Americans’ genius was to convert that negative energy into fuel to propel negotiations to their goal. ‘You want Israel to stop? Then let’s end the war.'”

Netanyahu’s office and the White House closely coordinated throughout subsequent talks to end the war, Segal reported. Then came an agreement backed by several Arab states calling for Hamas to disarm and without the immediate involvement of the Palestinian Authority.

Reactions in Israel to the “60 minutes” preview fell on predictable lines. Netanyahu’s critics said that the U.S. officials’ comments demonstrated that the prime minister did not want to enter the agreement, but instead was pushed into it by Trump.

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid argued that Witkoff and Kushner’s comments made clear that “after the failed attack on Doha, Trump thought that Netanyahu lost control and forced an agreement on Netanyahu that he didn’t want. … An American administration has never described an Israeli government like this.” 

Ha’aretz journalist Amir Tibon, who lived in one of the kibbutzim attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, posted on X: “Witkoff and Kushner say in their own voices: Trump understood that Netanyahu was not on the right track and acted aggressively against him to reach a ceasefire and free the hostages.”

Nava Rozolyo, a prominent figure in the protests against Netanyahu years before the Gaza war began, wrote: “Thank you … for forcing Hamas and Netanyahu to reach an agreement on the return of all hostages and ending the war. Thank you for saving us from our own government and for saving lives.” 

On the Israeli right, many took issue with Witkoff and Kushner’s retelling of events.

Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs President Dan Diker posted on X that “the Israelis ‘getting out of control’ is what helped bring the hostage deal to the table, scaring the Qataris out of their minds.”  

Some highlighted Kushner and Witkoff’s business dealings in Qatar. Kushner’s investment company, Affinity Partners, manages billions of dollars in investments from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund. Witkoff’s son sought Qatari investments in commercial real estate projects earlier this year, and in 2023, Qatar bought the Park Lane Hotel in Manhattan from Witkoff and his partners. 

Yishai Fleisher, spokesman for the Jewish community in Hebron and an informal advisor to Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who opposes the ceasefire deal, posted on X in response to the video: “Two American Jews, with no blood on the line in Israel (their wife and kids don’t drive on the roads with Jihadis), but lots of money on the line and business with Qatar, wag their finger at the Jewish State as they cut an awful deal that is certain to bring war.”

Other moments in the interview courted further controversy in Israel, such as when Witkoff described an Israeli cabinet meeting that he attended, in which Ben-Gvir talked about “all the death and all the carnage” from the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and was “emotional.” In response, Witkoff described his son Andrew’s death from an overdose and told the Israeli cabinet minister to “let it go, you just can’t play the victim all the time.” 

Witkoff also brought up his son’s death in the interview in relation to his meeting with Hamas lead negotiator Khalil al-Haya, whose son was killed in the Doha strike.

“We expressed our condolences to him for the loss of his son, and I told him that I had lost my son and we are both members of a really bad club, parents who had buried children,” he said. 

Kushner said of Witkoff and the senior Hamas terrorist: “When Steve and him talked about their sons, it turned from a negotiation with a terrorist group to seeing two human beings kind of showing a vulnerability with each other.”

Kushner also said that he sought to relay a message to Israel’s leadership that “now that the war is over, if you want to integrate Israel with the broader Middle East, you have to find a way to help the Palestinian people thrive and do better.”

“How are you doing with that message?” Leslie Stahl asked.

Kushner smiled and replied: “We’re just getting started.”

This report was updated on Oct. 20, 2025, after the CBS “60 Minutes” interview aired in full.

U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner arrived in Israel on Monday morning to discuss the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire, a day after Hamas killed two IDF soldiers and the Israeli Air Force struck in Rafah in response.

Hamas terrorists shot an anti-tank missile at heavy machinery used by the IDF to destroy the terrorist organization’s tunnels in Rafah, killing two soldiers on Sunday. Hamas claimed that the explosion was due to the machinery driving over an IED, but the IDF suspected the attack was part of an attempt to capture soldiers, Walla! News reported. 

There have been several other recent attacks by Hamas, including two on Friday in which terrorists emerged from tunnels and shot at IDF soldiers.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed the heads of Israel’s defense establishment to “take strong action against terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip,” his office stated soon after the Israeli strikes on Sunday. The Israeli army, however, announced on Sunday night, “In accordance with the directive of the political echelon, and following a series of significant strikes in response to Hamas’ violations, the IDF has begun the renewed enforcement of the ceasefire. The IDF will continue to uphold the ceasefire agreement and will respond firmly to any violation of it.”

The Rafah strikes came nearly a week after the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas came into effect. Hamas was supposed to free all 48 hostages that remained in Gaza at the time within 72 hours, according to the summary of the 20-point plan released by the White House. However, it only released the 20 living ones, and has been gradually handing over the bodies of deceased hostages; 16 bodies remain in Gaza.

In addition, Hamas terrorists have repeatedly launched attacks on Israeli soldiers, and Palestinians have crossed into areas in which IDF troops are deployed, in accordance with the ceasefire deal, leading the soldiers to shoot and kill several of them.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, called for “a full renewal of the fighting in the [Gaza] Strip, at full force. False imaginings that Hamas will change its skin or will even fulfill the agreement it signed have turned out, as expected, to be dangerous to our security. The Nazi terrorist organization must be fully destroyed, as soon as possible.” Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich simply posted: “War!”

The first phase of President Donald Trump’s deal had Israel withdraw to the “yellow line,” moving out of Gaza City and other areas, but remaining in control of 53% of Gaza, including Rafah. The IDF began posting concrete blocks painted yellow along that line on Sunday morning, as a warning to “Hamas terrorists and Gaza residents that any violation or attempt to cross the line will be met with fire,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said when he announced the erection of the physical boundary on Friday.

Hamas has also been clashing with and executing members of rival gangs and Gaza residents it has accused of collaborating with Israel. The State Department released a statement on Saturday warning that a Hamas “attack against Palestinian civilians would constitute a direct and grave violation of the ceasefire agreement” and, should they continue, “measures will be taken to protect the people of Gaza and preserve the integrity of the ceasefire.” 

Netanyahu’s office announced on Saturday night that the Rafah crossing, the main entrance for goods into Gaza, would remain closed as long as Hamas does not release the hostages’ bodies. However, IDF soldiers posted videos to social media of trucks of fuel entering Gaza on Sunday. 

Witkoff and Kushner, who has a key role in the administration’s Middle East efforts, are expected to start talks with Jerusalem about the second phase of the ceasefire deal, in which Hamas would be disarmed, Gaza would be demilitarized, the IDF would withdraw further and be replaced by an international stabilization force, and a technocratic government would be installed in Gaza, under the supervision of a Peace Board led by Trump and including former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair.

This story was updated on Oct. 20, 2025, at 04:20 a.m. ET.

“What has emerged from all my conversations is that the yearning for peace is very intense,” former South African President Nelson Mandela, visiting Israel in 1999 as part of a broader Middle East trip, said as he reflected on his meetings with leaders across the region. The trip came four months after Mandela, who built his legacy working to dismantle South Africa’s decades-long apartheid system and begin a process of national reconciliation, retired from politics.

More than a quarter century later — despite the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the degradation of Iran and its proxy network and numerous wars between Israel and its neighbors — that peace remains elusive. It was against that backdrop that two of Mandela’s granddaughters, Zamaswazi (Swati) Dlamini-Mandela and Zaziwe Dlamini-Manaway, traveled to Israel and the Gaza Strip earlier this month.

Their trip came amid strained relations between Pretoria and Jerusalem, whose leaders and senior officials have been increasingly at odds in recent years. The country’s Jewish community has raised concerns over South Africa’s deepening relations with Iran and aggressive posture toward Israel, which it accused of genocide in a December 2023 International Court of Justice filing.

Dlamini-Manaway and Dlamini-Mandela’s trip to Israel, organized by the National Black Empowerment Council, included meetings with Israeli hostage families and survivors of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks, visits to Israel’s holy sites and a day on the ground in Gaza where Mandela’s granddaughters assisted the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in its efforts to distribute aid in the enclave. They left the region days before a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced and the remaining 20 living hostages were released.

The Mandela granddaughters “thought that this could be a unique opportunity to bring necessary attention to what’s being done, while at the same time, as mothers, being able to say that they did something that was in the humanitarian tradition of their grandparents,” Darius Jones, the founder and executive director of the NBEC, told JI.

During the women’s trip, a flotilla, led by anti-Israel activists including Greta Thunberg, made its way through the Mediterranean Sea in an effort to reach the Gaza Strip. Aboard one of the ships was their cousin Nkosi Zwelivelile “Mandla” Mandela, another grandchild of Nelson Mandela. The ships attempting to illegally reach Gaza were intercepted by Israel, and participants were deported to their countries of origin.

The approach taken by Dlamini-Manaway and Dlamini-Mandela was, Jones explained, to “really be a part of something that can have meaningful impact, rather than just try to do a performative stunt, which is not about the people, but more about self-aggrandizement.”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jewish Insider: What made you come to Israel now, in this moment? It’s obviously a very interesting point in time, and not necessarily one that would invite a lot of visitors.

Zamaswazi (Swati) Dlamini-Mandela: Coming to Israel has always been a lifelong dream. Both of our grandparents, Nelson and Winnie, visited Israel. And my grandmother, I remember when she came back, she was like, it’s a trip that we have to take whenever we can, in our own time. 

I would have never imagined that I would be going in the middle of a war. When we were telling our families, they were literally shocked. Our kids were horrified, because they have this picture painted in their mind that there’s literally going to be missiles flying over our heads and all kinds of stuff. So it was scary for our family, but I think for us, we were like, what an opportune time to go.

For us, it’s important to actually go and actually experience the story for yourself. Coming from a high-profile family like ours, and also living in the media for years, all our lives have been pretty much lived in public, it’s very interesting what type of bias or viewpoints the news can take. So we always felt like, ‘Let’s go and see for ourselves. Let’s experience for ourselves, and let’s actually go on humanitarian missions to try and understand and really get to know what’s going on.’ For me, there’s no better way than actually physically being in a place to actually experience it. We’ve lived through wars here in South Africa, so that didn’t even scare me. It really wasn’t a thing that deterred me at all.

Zaziwe Dlamini-Manaway: I just knew that if my grandmother was alive, she would have said, ‘You definitely have to go, and make it as balanced as possible, and learn and don’t always take one side, because there’s always different sides to a story.’ So for me, I wanted it to be an experience where I could get both sides — the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. The first thing that I said when this trip came up was, ‘We have to go to Gaza.’ It was instinctive to me. It’s like, I have to go to Gaza, because that’s all we see in South Africa. We only see Gaza. We only see women and children. We only see Gaza flattened. So that was very important for me to see and witness for myself. Our grandmother and our family [have] been ridiculed in the media. So we are very, very cognizant of what we hear and what we take in, because we’ve lived it, and we know that the media can distort things tremendously.

JI: What did you know about Israel and about the region before this trip? 

SDM: There’s the obvious history and the long-term conflict between Israel and Palestinians. I think for the most part, for me, I’ve consumed the history on a very high level. I didn’t have the same experiences that my grandparents had, because we were so much younger then, when my grandfather visited. At the time, you know, [Palestinian Authority President] Yasser Arafat was still alive. We were so much younger then. I know it as much as I think the average person knows it. But certainly this was a  deep dive into a layered, complicated, complex, difficult history between a few nations. 

So I would say before this, I almost didn’t know enough, but I certainly learned a lot, and I’ve come away so much more enriched by my time there. There’s words that you hear, like checkpoints, right? ‘Controlled movements,’ ‘apartheid states,’ those are the things that you always heard and because it’s similar to our history. So in a sense, I was like, ‘Oh, OK, this resonates with our history because of what we went through in apartheid.’ So I think those are the things that you always heard and you always knew about, and you always obviously read about, but when it comes to the actual details of the history, I can’t say I really knew it, but I certainly have come away way more enriched. 

ZDM: It was a war. Our kids were terrified for us to go there. It’s a totally different country when you’re actually on the ground. Completely. It’s not what is perceived to us at home, I would say.

JI: You came at a time when we in Israel were approaching, now it’s past, the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks. 

ZDM: [On Oct. 7, 2023,] I remember all I heard on the news was there was an attack in Israel, and there were hundreds of people killed. But I didn’t actually understand the magnitude and the gravity of what actually happened on Oct. 7. We went to a kibbutz that was literally at arm’s length … to Gaza. It was a complete massacre, a complete massacre of innocent children, parents, people who survived the Holocaust. That was completely horrifying to me, I couldn’t even imagine … the [Nova music] festival. I think Swati cried the whole day at the site. 

I did not understand the magnitude of what actually happened on that day. It wasn’t portrayed to me. I was completely horrified by what happened. It was a massacre, it was deliberate, it was calculated. It was a complete obliteration of innocent women and children on one day. It pains me to think that this happened. 

But the people that I met — the mothers, the survivors — are still so hopeful, are still so resilient. It’s really something to look up to, because even through so much pain and agony and anguish, they are still hopeful that there could be a place where they can both — both nations, both people, Jewish and Palestinians — can live in a place peacefully, even in their differences. But Oct. 7, for me, was horrific. It was horrific, and it wasn’t told to us South Africans, I can safely say.

SDM: Hearing firsthand accounts of people who actually survived that day and what they experienced and their loss of loved ones, families whose loved ones were kidnapped, dead and alive, children who were kidnapped, and how children were used as pawns to negotiate with the government. 

Going into Gaza on that specific day [with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation] was also incredible, because you heard so many stories about aid not being delivered, aid not getting to the people and malnutrition. And it’s not perfect, right? In any war, nothing is going to be perfect. Aid delivery is never going to be perfect. What we were a part of, what we experienced, was an organization that certainly is trying to make their impact. There were 10,000 or so women and children that we saw that were able to be fed, that, if [they] needed medical care, there was medical care that was available to them. 

On the flip side of that, you have [Israeli] families that are still grieving the loss of loved ones who have not even returned, the hostages that still have not returned. The sheer devastation on both sides was very apparent that day. I think that was my biggest takeaway, that there’s suffering on both sides. Like Zaziwe said, to talk to and hear the stories of people who survived and who still have so much hope for the country and who still want peace. They’re desperate for peace. 

And I think the fact that we were also there on the day when [President Donald] Trump and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu met to talk about a peace deal and a peace agreement, to us, was a turning point, the fact that there can be peace, and there’s a potential peace that can come to the region. But the healing still needs to come. So we pray for peace. We really pray for peace. We’ve seen what the devastation is firsthand with our own eyes, we’ve seen it, and so we pray that the peace deal will come through, and it will hold.

JI: I saw that you met with Rachel Goldberg-Polin. Swati, before you got on the call, Zaziwe was telling me about her son, and she said he was 25 — he was basically the same age as Rachel’s son, Hersh. What was that meeting like?

ZDM: First of all, this woman is so strong. She is such a strong, strong lady. And what she went through with her only son, I can’t even imagine. She held on for over 300 days knowing that her son was alive, and then literally, right before the IDF was going to rescue him, [Hamas] killed him. Hearing her story was so profound, and really was a moment that I’ll never forget in my life. She literally took me into the day of what happened on Oct. 7. She had a smile on her face the whole time. When she was telling us a story, she was sad, but she had a smile on her face. She was so hopeful, and she was the perfect example of resilience, the perfect example of a person who wants peace, the perfect example of someone who said, ‘I really hope there’s an Israel where Palestinians and Israelis and Jews can live side by side.’ And she even said, ‘I really hope that one day we can have a TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] like you guys.’ She’s like, ‘That’s my wish. I want us to have a TRC in Israel.’ 

I was in awe of this woman. My son is 25 in two weeks, so I completely resonated with her. I completely connected with her, and she was so loving, and just wanted peace for her country that she loves, and I will never forget that experience. She literally described that day to me, from morning to end, from the moment when she found out that her son was actually held captive, and the message that he sent to her was, ‘Mommy. I’m sorry.’ Can you imagine? I mean, can you imagine knowing that your son has been injured, has been taken captive? Living in agony that your son is in captivity and is injured over 300 days? I can’t even imagine. I can’t even imagine. She is resilience to me, she really is. 

SDM: She was so strong, she was so kind, she was so determined to still ensure that the rest of the hostages get home. She gave us so much hope, because she’s like, ‘I want peace.’ It’s not something that you would expect. She’s an advocate for the families who probably don’t have the strength to be able to tell the story or to be able to push and fight. We were just in awe of her. She has hope, and she wants healing for the nations. She really wants healing for the nations. And she spoke about the women and children of Gaza. She spoke about what that means to her and the impact of that. So she spoke about everything. It wasn’t just a one-sided view for her. The human spirit’s ability to be able to live through such trauma and tragedy and still come out and still be so hopeful, for me, she was the epitome of that. 

JI: You went to a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation site. What was that experience like? What did you do? What were your interactions like?

ZDM: It was a very hot day, very, very hot. And I think they said that they had about, I think about 4,000-5,000 people before? So on that day they were expecting the biggest crowd. It was about 10,000 people that they were expecting. So, I mean, TV doesn’t do justice. It really doesn’t. When you’re actually on the ground and you actually see people running, literally running for food, it’s something that you can’t even explain. 

The men arrive first, they get their supplies, which is pretty chaotic for about 15, 20 minutes, because they’re literally fighting for their aid. So it’s very, very chaotic. And then after that, the women are so organized. The women and children are so organized. They stand in a line, unprovoked, very simple. They just know the order of things. So Swati and I and our team literally spent the whole day giving food, potatoes and eggs to the women, and there were lots of children as well. And I must say, everyone was just so grateful. They were so grateful. They were happy that we were there. There was no interruption. There was nothing untoward. All they came to do was to get food, nourishment and go home. And this happens every single day for these people. You saw the repercussions of what a war entails. Women and children are the biggest casualties, literally, because there were more women and children there. 

JI: What was their physical condition?

ZDM: I don’t know what they looked like before. I mean, obviously you could see the desperation. You could definitely see the desperation in them. They definitely do need aid and food, they definitely do. But I’ve seen what the hostages look like when they leave [Gaza], when they’ve been released, and they literally are people who are starving. They’re people who haven’t had anything for months on end. So for me, I compared what I’ve seen to the people, the women and children of Gaza. It’s a totally different image, for me, from what I saw. Obviously they want nourishment. Obviously they would like three meals a day. Obviously. But for me, there’s a difference between what I’ve seen between the hostages who were released and what I saw firsthand in Gaza, I’ll leave it at that.

SDM: It was nice to see that the organization works with Palestinians to facilitate the aid to the community. It’s obviously going to grow over time, which is what was explained to us, because 750,000 people had moved down to that area. GHF is building a bigger facility to actually give more aid, medical care in a way in which it’s safe for the people, as safe as it can be, for the Palestinians who need the aid, as well as the people who are working on the ground. I think from what you heard and what you saw, they’re really doing their best to try and see that they can bring aid to as many people as they can as an organization. I kept saying, ‘Is the food going to run out?’ But they kept bringing trucks. They just kept bringing trucks with potatoes and food packs for the families and nutritional snacks. 

And I think seeing firsthand what, like Zaziwe just said, women and children are always the biggest casualties of war, children that are not in school. It was incredibly insightful for us to be able to at least be there and participate and see it and be able to help GHF on that day, because they do so much. 

JI: So talking about being in Gaza distributing aid, the irony of the both of you being there distributing aid last week, was that at the same time that was happening, a cousin of yours was on a flotilla headed to Gaza. It’s the irony of ironies that there was a grandchild of Nelson Mandela delivering aid — actually, there were two — and it wasn’t the one who was making splashy headlines.

SDM: We’re a big family, first and foremost. Our grandparents have always, always taught us to carve out our own paths and walk our own journeys. My grandfather, he went to Israel and he went to Gaza. My grandmother didn’t have the opportunity to do the same. So for me, at the end of the day, we’re grateful that he’s back home and he’s safe, he’s fine. We were on a humanitarian mission for ourselves. We are a family that has different ways in which we want to contribute to society and to humanity, and we allow each other room to do that in ways which are befitting to the individual. 

So we were on our own mission, and we respect his mission and what he was doing. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the goal is about the people, right? That’s what the goal is, and that’s what the goal should always be. It should be about the people.

ZDM: I think that Swati said it perfectly. We’re a big family, and we all have our own ways of doing things, but the ultimate goal is peace to the region, and we want this war to end. We want all the hostages to come home, and we want the innocent people of Gaza and the Palestinians to also get the aid and food that they need. And we just want this war to end so we all have different ways of doing it, and we’re thankful that he’s home, but for us, we were there as granddaughters of Nelson and Winnie Mandela.

JI: People like to take your grandfather’s words and legacy to shape specific narratives around current events, and this has been going on for many, many years all around the world. When it comes to Israel, the term apartheid gets thrown around a lot. You’ve now been on the ground. You have experienced Israel for yourselves. How do you feel about the politicization of your grandfather’s words when it comes to Israel?

SDM: I’m not a politician. I have been asked many times in my life if I’m going to follow in their footsteps, and I always say, given my personal experience, I don’t really have the desire to. I think that we have a great example to follow in a leader like my grandfather. I’m not here to be a global activist like our grandparents were. I’m just here to make my little, little, little impact in whichever small way that I can, and I think just to be educated. The world has changed so much. Like Zaziwe said, if my grandmother was alive, my grandmother would have come to the region, without a shadow of a doubt, she would have been there because she was — both our grandparents were — those people. But I’m my own person, and I’m here to walk my own path. And people, I think it’s time for us to just walk our own paths. 

ZDM: I would say, I think our grandfather’s legacy quotes, what is lived up to is so powerful and so profound, and people can distort it and make it their own. Educate yourself, really educate yourself and really listen, really listen to the words that he spoke, maybe listen to what he said and just do your homework. I just don’t think that you should take and hear everything that you hear from the media, or take what somebody says on a stage and take it for what it really, really is. 

This trip was so important to us now, because I thought we have to go there ourselves and see it. And I know most people won’t have the opportunity, but it’s really important to invest time into what you actually believe in, what your conviction tells you about yourself. You need to actually invest. I mean, just not take it at face value, because it can be so distorted, and you can be so deceived, completely deceived, about a situation or about a person. 

What I took away was, for me, I literally, if I’m passionate about something, and I can sit there and say, I believe in this, or A, B, C or D, I need to actually put in the time to actually understand what I actually am investing my time and what I’m putting my name behind. Grandad’s name is used and said all over the world, but I find that people don’t really, don’t listen to what he actually really said, both him and my grandmother. You just have to put in time and really invest and educate yourself about what you believe in. 

The American Jewish Committee tapped Middle East policy official Anne Dreazen on Thursday as vice president and director of its Center for a New Middle East, Jewish Insider has learned. 

Dreazen, whose career spanned 15 years at the Department of Defense in a variety of roles — most recently as principal director for Middle East policy — is slated to begin the Washington DC-based position on Oct. 20. 

The Center for a New Middle East launched in June 2024 to advance the organization’s existing work in Israel and the Gulf. At the time, AJC CEO Ted Deutch told eJewishPhilanthropy that the center will host conferences and business programs in the U.S., Israel and the Gulf, as well as work with emerging leaders in Israel and the Arab world.

“At a time when the Middle East is undergoing profound challenges and transformations, the work of AJC’s Center for a New Middle East has never been more vital,” Dreazen told JI. “I’m honored and excited to join this extraordinary team working to advance the peace and security of Israel and its neighbors, to strengthen diplomatic, economic and civil society partnerships, and to shape a more hopeful future for the region.”

Dreazen oversaw U.S. defense cooperation with partners including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar while serving as the Pentagon’s principal director for Middle East Policy, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.  

She also served as a national security fellow in the Senate. Prior to that, Dreazen spent seven months on the ground in Iraq’s Anbar Province, facilitating U.S. reconstruction efforts following Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

“Anne brings a wealth of experience in national security and defense policy to this position, and deep familiarity with the priorities and principals guiding regional strategic affairs,” said Jason Isaacson, AJC chief policy and political affairs officer, who was the center’s first director. “After her distinguished career in the U.S. national security establishment, AJC looks forward to her guidance in shaping our efforts to widen the circle of Arab-Israeli peace.” 

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Monday that Israel had agreed to sign onto the White House’s 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza, with Trump calling the development “one of the great days ever in civilization.” 

Both leaders described the deal, which would release all of the remaining Israeli hostages in exchange for an immediate end of the war, as the starting point for greater regional integration, a goal that Trump described as “eternal peace in the Middle East.” 

Senior Trump administration officials first introduced the plan last week in a meeting with Arab and Muslim leaders in New York, and Trump said he had buy-in from the Qataris, who have been a go-between in negotiations with Israel and Hamas, and that he had discussed the matter with the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. 

But the deal is not yet final: Hamas has not yet agreed to it, though Trump expressed hope that the terror group will do so. Trump said he would allow Netanyahu to continue the war with his “full backing” if Hamas does not agree to it. 

“This can be done the easy way, or it can be done the hard way. But it has to be done,” Netanyahu said at the press conference. “All these goals must be achieved because we didn’t fight this horrible fight, sacrifice the finest of our young men, for Hamas to stay in Gaza.”

The plan would require the release of all the hostages still held by Hamas back to Israel within 72 hours, and an immediate end to the war, according to a copy of the plan published by the White House. In exchange, Israel would release 250 Palestinians serving life sentences in Israeli jails, along with nearly 2,000 Gazans detained since the Oct. 7 attacks in 2023.

The first principle of the plan is that Gaza would be deradicalized, with Hamas out of power and transitional mechanisms in place to take over governance of the beleaguered territory. Amnesty would be offered to Hamas members “who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons” once the hostages are returned. Hamas members who wish to leave would have safe passage to do so, although the plan does not explicitly state that they will be required to leave. The plan would also surge aid to Gaza through the United Nations and other international mechanisms as soon as the hostages are released.

An international transitional body, with Trump as chair and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair heavily involved, would oversee the redevelopment of Gaza until the Palestinian Authority has been reformed and is able to take over leadership of the Gaza Strip. The U.S. and other Arab and international partners would develop a temporary stabilization force to deploy in Gaza, and Trump would oversee the creation of an economic development plan to facilitate investments in the seaside territory. 

“I believe that today we are taking a critical step towards both ending the war in Gaza and setting the stage for dramatically advancing peace in the Middle East, and I think beyond the Middle East, with very important Muslim countries,” Netanyahu said. “We’re giving everybody a chance to have this done peacefully, something that will achieve all our war objectives without any further bloodshed.” 

Several Muslim leaders announced their support for the deal, including the prime minister of Pakistan and the Emirati foreign minister. 

As Trump and Netanyahu stood side by side, each heaping praise upon the other, they were not entirely on the same page about all aspects of the deal — in particular the role of the Palestinian Authority in the future governance of Gaza, which Netanyahu has all but written off, despite that goal listed as an objective in the White House’s plan. 

“Gaza will have a peaceful civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority,” Netanyahu said, a contrast to the plan’s language that the PA — once it is reformed, an objective that could take years — will control Gaza. 

The White House deal also recognizes “Palestinian self-determination and statehood” as “the aspiration of the Palestinian people.” Netanyahu, however, has said repeatedly that a Palestinian state is out of the question. 

Trump did not refer to the plan’s language about Palestinian statehood in his remarks, instead offering leeway to Netanyahu. “Prime Minister Netanyahu is very clear about his opposition to a Palestinian state,” Trump said. “Several countries have foolishly recognized the Palestinian state.” 

The leaders’ comments followed a three-hour meeting between Trump and Netanyahu. During the meeting, Trump orchestrated a phone call between Netanyahu and the Qatari emir, which Trump said afterward was a “a heart-to-heart conversation” in which Netanyahu apologized for Israel’s attack on Doha last month that targeted Hamas leaders and killed a Qatari security guard. The three nations agreed to launch a “formal trilateral mechanism” to “enhance mutual security, correct misperceptions and avoid future misgivings.” 

The full text of the plan says that even if Hamas rejects the plan, the scaled-up humanitarian aid operation will continue, and terror-free areas will be handed over from the Israel Defense Forces to the international stabilization force. But Trump said that Israel will have the “full backing” of the U.S. to resume fighting in Gaza if Hamas does not accept the plan. 

“If Hamas rejects the deal — which is always possible, they’re the only one left. Everyone else has accepted it. But I have a feeling that we’re going to have a positive answer. But if not, as you know, Bibi, you’d have our full backing,” said Trump.  

In the two years since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, there have been many books in multiple languages published on the topic — personal accounts, tales of heroism, a hostage memoir — but While Israel Slept: How Hamas Surprised the Most Powerful Military in the Middle East by Yaakov Katz and Amir Bohbot may be the most comprehensive. 

In the book, Katz, the founder of the MEAD (Middle East-America Dialogue) and former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, and Bohbot, a veteran Israeli defense reporter, answer the biggest questions about that day, going through the events leading up to the attacks, including the fateful night before.

The book also dedicates chapters to stark warnings that an Oct. 7-style attack could happen again if Israel does not make necessary changes. 

In an interview with Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov and Asher Fredman, the executive director of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, on the “Misgav Mideast Horizons” podcast last week, Katz said that his “deepest fear is that this could happen again.”

“Eventually, quiet will set in,” Katz said. “And I fear that Israel will fall back in love with the quiet and will neglect, to some extent, the vigilance that it will require to prevent Hamas from being able to … reconstitute itself.”

While Katz said he is skeptical Hamas could again launch attacks at the scale of Oct. 7, “to prevent them from rebuilding and reconstituting … will require a major effort that Israel has never really done.”

“Israel fought wars, we walked away and threw away the key, but we’ve never maintained the success … [except] in the West Bank, after Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. … Israel created operational freedom, and then it retained the operational freedom, so in the almost 24 years since, Israel goes in and out of the West Bank as it sees fit,” he said.

Katz noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has talked about creating a similar situation in Gaza.

“The proof will be in the pudding … If [the IDF] doesn’t do that and just says, ‘We’ll jot down the target, we’ll build up the target bank,’ that’s falling right back into the trap that led to Oct. 7,” he stated.

The IDF has also made structural changes to how it gathers intelligence, Katz said, and there is more coordination between intelligence bodies than before and a better flow of information to the decision-makers. 

“I think there’s more vigilance today by the IDF in the way it watches the borders along Israel,” he said. “That preemptive policy, if you see just a rocket being moved or you see a bad guy driving in a car or you see a tunnel being dug — we’re now applying it very much in Lebanon … Israel continues to operate pretty freely in Lebanon. This is part of that new policy. I think that in the aftermath of however this war does end, that will be integral to keep Hamas from reconstituting itself in a way that it could pose another major strategic threat to Israel.”

While Israel Slept is meant to provide “a look at the entirety of what happened,” Katz said.

“What were the different alarm bells that we now know were sounding … in IDF headquarters and Shin Bet headquarters? What were the earlier signs that we know about?” Katz said. “How did Israel fall into a state of complacency? … How was the policy of containment created?” 

Katz said both former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Netanyahu should have “refuse[d] to accept a reality that a genocidal terrorist group is living alongside our border.”

“If you look at the way Israel approached Hamas and approached Gaza, it was as if we’re stuck,” he said. “We don’t have an alternative … [to] this game of whack-a-mole every two years or so, where we hit them on the head.” 

Israel viewed Hamas as “the bottom of the totem pole” of threats, far below Iran and Hezbollah, Katz said. 

Another entrenched — and incorrect — belief in Israel’s political and military establishments was that helping Gaza economically would make Hamas less likely to attack Israel, Katz argued.

“When Naftali Bennett became prime minister in the summer of 2021, he was announcing to the whole world with great pride how he allowed in 10,000 [Gazan] workers” to Israel, said Katz, who was an advisor to Bennett from 2013-2016. “We now know that during his period as prime minister, they were preparing for this invasion and he just got lucky that it didn’t happen on his watch.”

In addition, Katz said that Israel’s general defense doctrine was not to launch preemptive wars in response to conventional military buildups, pointing to Hezbollah’s amassment of 150,000 missiles.

“That has changed,” he said. “The issue of preemption now seems like it’s setting in as the new policy for Israel, which is … the only way forward.”

Katz is also the author of Weapons Wizards, about Israel’s defense industry, and had been working on a follow-up book before Oct. 7. He now views the Israeli military’s reliance on technology as part of what allowed it to remain complacent for so long.

One such kind of technology was defensive. With the Iron Dome, Israel “was able to swat missiles out of the sky like they were mosquitoes. It made it seem like the missile threat is nothing … not a strategic threat.”

When Hamas fighters crossed into Israel via tunnels during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge, Israel sought to address that problem with technology as well, building a border fence with a deep underground element.

“They put these teams of the smartest soldiers and scientists together with sonar experts, seismic experts, geologists … They come up with a system that can detect where a tunnel is being dug, when it’s being dug. They’re so sensitive that they can tell what tool is being used to dig the tunnel: a jackhammer, a shovel, a bulldozer,” Katz said.

“How many people crossed into Israel on Oct. 7 in a tunnel? Zero.” he added. “They blew about 60 different points of entry in the border [fence] and that’s where they came in. … The technology created a false sense of security that we are impenetrable.” 

Israel was also overreliant on intelligence technology, Katz said. 

“There were hundreds of Hamas [terrorists] in the initial wave [into Israel on Oct. 7] and there wasn’t a single one who could call up his Israeli handler and say, ‘We’re coming,’” Katz said. “We had no agents or informants on the ground in Gaza. We thought we knew everything by listening to them, by watching them. We had neglected the basics of intelligence collection, which is human intelligence.” 

Katz said the IDF and Shin Bet have invested in building up greater resources on that front since Oct. 7.

“Contrast Gaza with Lebanon, with the amazing pager attack, with what Israel did in Iran, taking out nuclear scientists and the top military leadership. You see that when Israel allocates the resources, the attention and the focus, it can do incredible things,” he said.

Katz also spoke out against the “huge distraction” of the government’s planned judicial reform that consumed the country in 2023, as well as the outsized public protests against it.

“The right will say that the left and the protesters, and especially those who were the reservists who threatened to not follow orders … weakened the military and the left, or the anti-judicial reform protesters would say the government, in its refusal to stop … and be willing to understand that dividing ourselves made us vulnerable, made us exposed. However you look at it, in the end, the responsibility is upon the government,” he said. 

When Israel Slept includes several stories of senior defense officials warning the government that the deep divisions in Israel posed a security threat and Israel’s enemies would take advantage of the discord; though, Katz noted, no one specifically warned that Hamas was planning an invasion.

Katz said the weakening effect on Israel by the extremely tense political atmosphere should have been obvious to the country’s leaders: “We’re at each other’s throats. We’re ripping ourselves apart on the streets. … If we saw this division on the streets of Tehran or Damascus, would we not try to fan the flames just a bit to achieve our objectives in those countries and among our adversaries? Why would we think they would not do the same to us?”

In addition, Katz said, Hamas chose to launch its attack in October 2023 because Israel-Saudi normalization talks seemed to be coming to fruition, and because Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar believed “the alliance between Israel and the U.S. had been weakened and that the Americans under then-President [Joe] Biden would not stand with Israel. … He was wrong.”

In general, though, Katz pointed out, “they’re a genocidal terrorist group. They don’t need an excuse to want to kill us and attack us. It’s something they wake up to every single day. Terrorists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad seek our destruction.” 

Hamas’ understanding of the Israeli psyche went beyond taking advantage of the divisions of early 2023, and was a part of its hostage-taking strategy.

“From day one … I could have said, ‘We’re going to win this war, because we’re going to bring down Hamas … but the hostages, we won’t get them back.’ And you would have looked at me and said ‘You’re crazy, that’s not a victory.’ And I could have said the opposite, we’ll win the war because we get the hostages back, but Hamas will remain in power, and you also would have said, legitimately, ‘What are you talking about? That’s not victory,’” Katz said.

“If there weren’t hostages, the war would have ended much earlier,” he said. “Part of this is because we the Israeli people — and I think this is something that the world does not recognize — are still very much hurting, are still very much in our trauma. And as long as the hostages remain in Gaza … the Israeli people will not be able to recover, rehabilitate and heal, and this will make this conflict, unfortunately, continue.”

A senior Hamas official publicly rejected any deal requiring the terrorist organization to lay down its arms, after Israel said it would support such a deal proposed by the Trump administration.

In response to the Trump deal, Bassem Naim, a Turkey-based senior Hamas official, released a statement on his Telegram channel on Monday calling the proposal a “humiliating surrender document” and not a serious offer to end the war. 

Naim told Middle East Monitor, a pro-Hamas, Qatar-funded site, that the terrorist group would agree to a long-term ceasefire and would release all of the hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, but the Palestinians “right” to weapons and to fight Israel “cannot be relinquished.” He also said the terrorist group would only agree to a full IDF withdrawal from Gaza.

The Trump administration’s deal, according to Israel’s Channel 12, would require Israel to stop its military operation in Gaza City and start a 60-day ceasefire. In the first 48 hours, Hamas would release all 48 remaining hostages, 20 of whom are believed to be alive, in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Then, the sides would negotiate the end to the war.

The proposal does not get into the details of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which is supposed to take place gradually as other elements enter to administer the enclave. Israel has said it will maintain a security perimeter around the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor along the border with Egypt.

According to Kan, peace activist Gershon Baskin, at the request of U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Wikoff, passed the offer to Hamas official Ghazi Hamad, with whom he reached the 2011 deal to release captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. Baskin told Al-Monitor that the plan includes incentives for Hamas, though he did not specify what they are. 

President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday that “everyone wants the Hostages HOME. Everyone wants this War to end! The Israelis have accepted my Terms. It is time for Hamas to accept them as well. I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning, there will not be another one!”

A source close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that while Israel is “seriously considering” the proposal, “it seems that Hamas will continue its refusal.” 

A Qatari official briefed media that the country’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani, met with Hamas negotiator Khalil Al-Hayya on Monday and pressed him to “respond positively” to the proposal.

Israel has said its conditions to end the war are “the release of all hostages, Hamas’ disarmament, demilitarization of the [Gaza] strip, Israeli security control of the [Gaza] Strip, the establishment of an alternative civilian government that does not educate to terror, does not promote terror and will not threaten Israel,” as the Prime Minister’s Office stated last week.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened on Monday that “a great hurricane will strike today in the skies of Gaza City and the roofs of the terror towers will shake.”

“This is the last warning to the Hamas murderers and rapists in Gaza and in luxury hotels abroad: Free the hostages and lay down your weapons or Gaza will be destroyed and you will be destroyed,” he wrote on X. 

Hours later, Netanyahu said that the Israeli Air Force bombed 50 “terrorist high-rises” in Gaza City.

“All of this is only the introduction, only the beginning of the main intensive operation, the ground incursion of our forces, that are now getting organized and gathering, into Gaza City,” he added during a visit to Air Force Command. “To the residents of Gaza, listen to me carefully: You have been warned. Get out of there.” 

At the start of Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Netanyahu acknowledged “the price that we are paying in the diplomatic and public diplomacy fields.”

“The best way to get out of this, of course, is to … end the war as fast as possible with the victory that we have defined: Eliminating Hamas, the return of all the hostages and ensuring that Gaza never again threatens Israel,” he said. 

However, he added: “If I need to choose between victory over our enemies and malicious propaganda against us, I choose victory over our enemies.”

When Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) won his first election to the House in 2022, Jewish leaders in his Orlando, Fla., district who had been encouraged by his personal outreach were optimistic he would follow through on a range of commitments he had made vowing to uphold support for Israel.

Despite some initial concerns about his history of involvement in pro-Palestinian demonstrations as well as relationships with anti-Israel activists, Frost had circulated a lengthy Middle East position paper in consultation, in part, with a top pro-Israel group that largely assuaged lingering reservations among Jewish community leaders over the sincerity of his views. 

In the paper as well as a candidate questionnaire solicited by Jewish Insider during his first primary, the young progressive organizer, describing himself as both “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian,” voiced opposition to conditioning aid to Israel — arguing that the security threats facing the Jewish state are “far too grave” to enact such measures. In backing a two-state solution, he clarified that any agreement should require “the basic recognition that Israel has a right to exist” as well as “an end to the antisemitic rhetoric and positions of Hamas.” And if elected, he pledged to visit Israel — which he called “one of the United States’ most important allies and strategic partners.”

Now, almost midway into his second term, Jewish and pro-Israel leaders are expressing some buyer’s remorse as Frost, 28, has embraced positions that put him at odds with his past commitments, fueling frustration among those who had believed he would be a more dependable ally on key issues concerning Israel. 

Frost, for his part, insists that the humanitarian conditions in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza have deteriorated so drastically during his tenure that he had no choice but to change his views, though that has not quelled discontent among his former allies.

“He has broken a lot of promises,” said one Jewish leader, echoing others who expressed dismay with Frost’s turn in Congress.

The most recent move to draw scrutiny from Jewish and pro-Israel leaders is a letter Frost signed urging the Trump administration to recognize a Palestinian state over growing concerns with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The letter, signed by several prominent House progressives and led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — who plans to introduce a similar resolution — said such a state “will need to fully recognize Israel” and guarantee “the disarmament of and relinquishing of power by Hamas.” But pro-Israel activists broadly see the renewed effort as a misguided concession to Hamas amid the ongoing war — as the terror group seeks to leverage international outrage over Israel’s military conduct.

Democratic Majority for Israel, whose political arm had provided input on Frost’s position paper during his primary, took issue with his decision to join the letter. While the group felt sufficiently comfortable with Frost’s Middle East policy views when he first ran for Congress, opting not to intervene on behalf of a top primary rival who had won an endorsement from its super PAC, it has become dissatisfied with his approach as he has continued to stake out more adversarial stances toward Israel during his time in the House.

“We strongly support a two-state solution that ensures Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state with recognized borders and upholds the right of Palestinians to live in freedom and security in a viable state of their own,” Brian Romick, DMFI’s president, said in a statement to JI on Tuesday. “But unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state at this time — as the terrorist group Hamas still governs parts of Gaza and continues to hold Israeli hostages — would not advance peace. It will instead prolong the war by incentivizing Hamas to reject any ceasefire deal, and reward the terrorism we saw on Oct. 7 while making future acts of terror more likely.”

In addition to the letter — which followed a similar resolution he co-sponsored in 2023 during his first term — Frost in May joined legislation to place unprecedented new conditions on aid to Israel by withholding offensive weapons over its alleged violations of international law.

Last year, he also voted against a widely approved bill to provide supplemental aid to Israel six months after Hamas’ attacks. In a statement explaining his thinking at the time, Frost wrote that he was “only able to justify aid for defense, not offense, and this legislation did not allow me to separate the two,” as the war “has claimed the lives of countless innocent Palestinian civilians and brought us no closer to the return of innocent Israeli hostages held by Hamas.”

“For me, the North Star here is having a two-state solution, and everything, all the decisions we make, have to point to that,” Frost said, arguing that he has remained consistent in upholding his core beliefs on the conflict even as his positions on specific policies have changed since he launched his initial campaign for Congress. “The thing I have in mind is the safety and security of everybody, of Israel, of Palestinians — of everybody.”

Meanwhile, Frost has yet to fulfill his campaign vow to travel to Israel, and has declined invitations to do so while in Congress, according to a person familiar with the matter.

In an interview on Wednesday, Frost acknowledged that his approach has changed since he entered the House, attributing his new positions to his revulsion at Israel’s behavior in Gaza — which he described as “completely unacceptable” and “abhorrent” in light of the civilian death toll. “In terms of specific policy points, things have changed,” Frost told JI. “Things have changed a lot — and unfortunately, not for the better.”

“For me, the North Star here is having a two-state solution, and everything, all the decisions we make, have to point to that,” he added, arguing that he has remained consistent in upholding his core beliefs on the conflict even as his positions on specific policies have changed since he launched his initial campaign for Congress. “The thing I have in mind is the safety and security of everybody, of Israel, of Palestinians — of everybody.”

Even as he condemned Hamas and said the terror group should have no role in rebuilding postwar Gaza, Frost said the conflict has evolved into what he regards as a “war on innocent people,” resulting in “massive loss of innocent life” that has fueled his decision to speak up against the Israeli government and its ongoing military campaign.

In the Middle East position paper he wrote in his first primary, Frost had rejected placing additional conditions on aid to Israel because, he wrote at the time, it would “undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself against the very serious threats it faces.” But he explained on Wednesday he had also felt such measures were “already written into the law” and “we didn’t really need to go further” in enforcing it at the time. 

Now, however, “I do believe that the law is being violated,” he told JI, clarifying his recent support for legislation that seeks to withhold transfers of offensive weapons to Israel. “Because of that, we have to look at the way that we are both complicit but also encouraging the current behavior of the Netanyahu government,” he said.

Unlike a handful of his far-left House colleagues who have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza, Frost hesitated to use the term himself, calling it a “difficult” word because of its historical connection to the Holocaust. Still, he said he would not seek to discourage others from such charges. “I’m not going to sit here and defend what is going on right now in any way, shape or form,” he said. “I understand why people use that word. But when we see what’s going on, it’s hard to find the words for it.”

“There’s a lot of things to hold, but the main thing is, yes, there are many things that have changed,” he reiterated. “But for me, what has not changed is the main goal, which is making sure that everyone’s safe and everyone’s secure.”

Frost is hardly alone among Democratic lawmakers who in recent months have become more critical of Israel’s behavior, with even some of the staunchest supporters of the Jewish state struggling to defend the Israeli government as the humanitarian situation in Gaza has continued to worsen nearly two years into the war.

“It’s a radical shift,” one community activist told JI, voicing frustration with Frost’s positions, even as he described their ongoing conversations as “very open and honest.” 

His vacillating stances also illustrate some of the cross-pressures facing progressive Democrats who are not completely aligned with the party’s far left on its hostility toward Israel. Pro-Israel Democrats have recently voiced their concerns that anti-Israel policies could become a litmus test for the left in the midterms, particularly amid Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s moves to occupy the enclave.

But Jewish community leaders in Frost’s district, who spoke on condition of anonymity to address what they characterize as an increasingly delicate relationship with the congressman, explained they are particularly disappointed with his evolution on Middle East policy, given their initial hopes that he would be among a dwindling number of progressive allies committed to defending Israel in the House.

“It’s a radical shift,” one community activist told JI, voicing frustration with Frost’s positions, even as he described their ongoing conversations as “very open and honest.” 

The activist noted that Frost, who had been a prominent gun control advocate before he was elected to Congress, has “a good heart and doesn’t want to see people dying.” But “as a result,” he said, Frost has “a lot of blind spots” in his assessment of the conflict. The activist argued that Frost’s critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza has ignored Hamas’ role in perpetuating the crisis as it refuses to surrender.

“At the end of the day, he very much comes from the ‘oppressor-oppressed’ worldview and sees Israel as the oppressor,” the activist said.

Frost, for his part, said his statements have been misconstrued by a wide range of critics across the spectrum, including pro-Palestinian activists who allege that he made separate commitments during his first primary bid that he has failed to uphold in Congress.

He stressed that he does not “do tit-for-tat stuff” while addressing the war. “Whenever I post about the hostages, I’ll have people sending me messages. ‘What about this?’ No,” he said. “Whenever I post about Palestinians, I’ll have people saying, ‘What about this?’ No, I will post about it all. I will talk about it all. I will say how I feel about everything.”

“I’m very firm in that, just coming from a place of, since I was 15 years old, being involved in the fight to end gun violence, and have grown up through a movement of death,” he told JI. “I just don’t think that’s the way to live as a human, quite frankly.”

“We’ve been disappointed that he has not met the commitments he gave to us,” one DMFI source told JI. “At the same time, we’re grateful that he has come to realize he made a mistake in at least one case, but members of Congress should think through their votes fully and discuss them with knowledgeable people before casting them.”

Even as Jewish and pro-Israel leaders say their relationships with Frost have worsened in recent months, frustration over his approach to Israel has been mounting since his first term, when he called for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza just days after Hamas’ terror attacks. As a freshman, he also voted against a resolution condemning rising antisemitic activity on college campuses, but he later said that vote had been a mistake after meeting with Jewish students in his district.

While Frost had shown contrition for his vote on the resolution in November 2023, DMFI still expressed dissatisfaction with his initial decision at the time — alleging he had not performed proper due diligence beforehand. “We’ve been disappointed that he has not met the commitments he gave to us,” one DMFI source told JI not long after the vote.

“At the same time, we’re grateful that he has come to realize he made a mistake in at least one case, but members of Congress should think through their votes fully and discuss them with knowledgeable people before casting them,” the source stated.

A spokesperson for Frost told JI at the time that the congressman “is trying to hold multiple truths all at once” as he receives input from constituents pushing opposing interests.

“I’m very comfortable with the decisions I’ve made,” Frost said of his approach to Israel. “As I walk the streets of my district, as I speak with the people in my district, this is where I find most people are at. They’re not really at the extremes that I’ve heard from.”

Speaking with JI on Wednesday, Frost said he has appreciated his ongoing discussions with pro-Israel leaders in his district — even if they have not been aligned on major policy questions in recent months. “Hearing their perspective is really important,” he confirmed. “What I always tell people is I might not always come to the conclusion that you agree with,” he said, “but I hope you’ll always feel I’ve engaged in good faith.”

He suggested that Jewish community activists who have been irked by his approach to the Middle East have not fully reckoned with his belief that Israel’s military actions have damaged its reputation in the United States. “It’s palpable across the country, and I think a lot of this has to do with the decisions that are being made by Netanyahu,” he argued.

“I’m very comfortable with the decisions I’ve made,” Frost said of his approach to Israel. “As I walk the streets of my district, as I speak with the people in my district, this is where I find most people are at. They’re not really at the extremes that I’ve heard from.”

When he assumed office in 2023, Frost had sought guidance from pro-Israel Democrats including Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who enthusiastically backed his campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), one person familiar with the matter told JI. But the congressman has since drifted away from the two lawmakers on Israel while staking out positions that have put him more in line with the far left.

More recently, Frost has built closer relationships with such leading Israel critics as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the source told JI, even if he has resisted identifying as an official member of the so-called Squad of progressive House Democrats. 

Owing in part to his network in Congress, Jewish community leaders are doubtful Frost will change his views on Israel. “It may be the best that we can hope is that he doesn’t become an actual member of the Squad,” said one activist, while noting that Frost is “totally safe” in his deeply blue district as he seeks a third term next year. 

Still, the activist said, “his refusal to actually go and see” Israel “first-hand is a problem,” particularly in light of his primary vow to visit the Jewish state as a congressman.

Frost, who acknowledged the commitment that he had made, said he hopes to see the region “at some point,” but added that it has “been difficult to figure out the timing.”

After the interview, Frost asked his spokesperson to clarify that he would “like to travel to the region at a point where he’d be able to visit both Israel and the Gaza Strip,” indicating a potential visit is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future.