A Message NOT to be Ignored

 

The Cyber Mirage: How Israel Successfully Deflected Iran’s Massive Wave of Digital Strikes

Eliana Fleming APR 20, 2026

A recent study published by the firm ClearSky has revealed that the Iranian regime’s cyber capabilities have suffered a major strategic defeat. Despite a significant 15 fold increase in activity from groups such as Handala, the research concludes that the vast majority of these operations resulted in nothing more than reused propaganda. While the regime and its proxy groups have flooded the internet with grand declarations about the collapse of Israeli critical infrastructure, the actual impact on the ground has been negligible.

The investigation indicates that the Iranian cyber strategy has prioritized psychological war over tangible technical results. By claiming responsibility for events that never occurred or inflating minor technical glitches into strategic breakthroughs. Many of the purported data breaches, which Handala touted as massive thefts of sensitive information, were exposed as recycled data from years past or entirely fabricated claims. This approach has allowed the regime to maintain a facade of operational potency while lacking the actual capacity to disable the Israeli economy or degrade civilian life.

Tehran has increasingly utilized its cyber arm as a supplementary tool to generate a digital image of victory whenever the war results in military losses. However, the study identifies three critical factors behind this ongoing failure: the robust defensive posture of Israel’s security establishment, the lack of genuine technological innovation among Iranian hackers, and the persistence of outdated attack methods. Despite having ample time to modernize, Iranian operators continue to rely on basic techniques such as phishing and the utilization of known vulnerabilities.

The Israeli defensive teams and large scale organizations have successfully blocked thousands of daily penetration attempts, proving that the regime’s digital bark remains far worse than its bite.

Israel Turns 78 With 10.244 Mill. People and a Happiness Ranking Embarrassing Most of Europe

 By Shmuli Volkin, Jewish Breaking News

On the eve of its 78th Independence Day, Israel is not just surviving, it’s surging. The Central Bureau of Statistics put the country’s population at 10.244 million, up roughly 146,000 people, or 1.4 percent, over the past year.

Born out of war, tested by war, and still absorbing the shock of October 7 and the campaigns that followed, the Jewish state enters Yom Ha’atzmaut more populous, more prosperous and, by its own citizens’ accounting, happier than most of the Western world.

The demographic snapshot tells a story no adversary wants to hear. Jews and those classified as “others” make up 7.79 million residents, about 76 percent of the population. Arab citizens number 2.157 million, and roughly 296,000 are foreign nationals.

Some 177,000 babies were born in the past year, a figure that dwarfs the birth rates of virtually every comparable developed economy, alongside around 21,000 new olim and 48,000 deaths.

Four in five citizens are Israeli-born sabras. More than a quarter of the country is 14 or younger; only 13 percent are over 65. In an aging West, Israel is conspicuously young.

Today close to 45 percent of the world’s Jews live inside its borders, a reversal of nearly two millennia of exile that no planner in Ben-Gurion’s era would have dared predict.

Life expectancy has climbed by nearly two decades since independence, now sitting at 81.1 years for men and 85.5 for women. Average wages have jumped from roughly 2,300 shekels a month in the 1990s to just under 14,000 today. Car ownership, that crude but telling marker of middle-class arrival, has climbed from 3 percent of households in 1959 to about 72 percent now.

Despite the hostage crisis, the rocket fire, the war with Iran, and the drumbeat of international hostility, Israelis overwhelmingly say they’re doing fine. Ninety-one percent report being satisfied or very satisfied with their lives. The United Nations’ World Happiness Report ranks Israel eighth for 2026, well above the USA at 23 and the UK at 29

Selective Outrage: When Hezbollah Attacks

 by Majid Rafizadeh  •  April 18, 2026

For full article go to https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22447/selective-outrage-hezbollah

• The latest escalation in hostilities did not begin with Israel. It began with Hezbollah.
• Israel found itself faced with ongoing rocket fire from Lebanon and the presence of a heavily armed group on its border – in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which had unanimously required of Lebanon: "three principles -- no foreign forces, no weapons for nongovernmental militias, and no independent authority separate from the central government -- as vital to a lasting Lebanese peace."
• Hezbollah's operational tactics, like those of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is to embed its military infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding weapons, command centers and operational assets in densely populated neighborhoods.... With Hezbollah's military targets located in homes, hospitals and schools within civilian population centers, any efforts to neutralize them carry the tragic possibility of unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy deliberately designed to constrain Israel's responses and generate international backlash against it.
• Responsibility for these war crimes lies squarely with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which deliberately orchestrated them. Any resulting casualties cannot be judged outside this context.
• In 2024, Hezbollah violated its ceasefire with Israel and also attacked in 2025 at Iran's behest. Israel's response comports with what any sovereign state would do when confronted with attacks on its territory and civilian population.
• If there is to be any meaningful discussion about stability in the Middle East, it needs to begin with an honest acknowledgment of these realities. Otherwise, international reactions will continue to mischaracterize the problem by criticizing responses while overlooking their causes -- and contributing to the conflict rather than to its resolution.

 

US allies nominate Iran for UN human rights committee despite mass executions

 With thanks to Vered Weiss, World Israel News

Iran is set to take its place as a member of a 54-nation committee to safeguard human rights, despite the Islamic Republic’s mass execution of protesters.

Iran will join the UN’s Committee for Programme and Coordination after being selected by the body’s Economic and Social Council, which comprises 54 nations.

Many countries, including the UK, Australia, France and Canada, nominated Iran to join the committee. The only country to vote against the nomination was the US.

The committee’s upcoming agenda includes issues such as terrorism, women’s rights and gender equality, and disarmament.

Iran’s selection comes as its authorities continue a wide-ranging crackdown on dissent.

On January 8 and 9, security forces opened fire on nationwide demonstrations, killing tens of thousands of protesters. Estimates place the death toll between about 12,000 and more than 30,000 people over those two days.

The government has continued its campaign in the months since, carrying out arrests and executions and enforcing restrictions on women’s rights. Authorities have maintained policies that limit basic freedoms and suppress opposition activity.

Tehran has also been cited for its role in funding major terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, even as it prepares to participate in discussions that include counterterrorism.

The Economic and Social Council’s decision places Iran on a committee tasked with coordinating UN programs, including those tied to human rights-related issues.

The UN’s Committee for Programme and Coordination is a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council that reviews and coordinates the United Nations’ work programs.

It is becoming politically incorrect to defend oneself

 A growing number of leading progressives in the American political spectrum have come out against continued American funding for the system, some saying it has “emboldened Israel" to attack other countries.

For years, support for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system was immune to politics.

Republicans backed it. Democrats backed it. Funding passed because it was obvious. Intercepting rockets aimed at civilians is not a complicated moral equation.

That clarity is now fading.

As recently as September, a bill to approve supplemental funding for Iron Dome passed the House with only 9 dissenting votes.

However, today, a growing number of leading progressives have come out against continued American funding for the system.

J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Ro Khanna, and Jewish Democratic congressional challenger Brad Lander all now oppose future budget earmarks for Israeli defense systems.

The bottom line is that it is becoming politically incorrect to win a war and human rights are being turned on its head.

Why ‘US Aid to Israel’ is a Myth

 Full article at https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-891150

The full strategic consequences of the conflict with Iran remain to be seen. What has already emerged, however, is a clearer picture of the US-Israel alliance: not a one-sided act of American benevolence or an emergency rescue mission, but a deepening strategic partnership shaped by shared interests, joint capabilities, and mutual benefit. That is exactly why the habitual phrase “aid to Israel” is so misleading.te

Israel is America’s cost-effective strategic ally

One conclusion was unmistakable: calling the US-Israel security framework “aid” is inaccurate, and it hands skeptics an easy talking point, as though this relationship cannot be equated with America First. 

In reality, the arrangement functions as a strategic exchange that advances American interests, strengthens American industry, and reduces the need for costlier US R&D and military exposure.

Every few months, Washington relitigates “US aid to Israel,” as though it were a discretionary act of charity, a foreign transfer sustained primarily by sentiment. That framing is politically unhelpful and descriptively wrong. The word “aid” implies a one-way relationship, dependency, and benevolence unconnected to the donor’s concrete interests. It invites the predictable question: Why are we paying for someone else’s security when Americans have needs at home? It is the wrong framework for a security architecture designed to protect American interests, strengthen American production, and reduce the likelihood of direct American military exposure.

If the United States wants a clearer debate, it should change the terminology. Call it what it functionally is: a US-Israel security exchange, a strategic defense partnership, or an allied capability investment. The label matters because the arrangement itself is not structured as a cash gift, and the returns are not abstract.

Begin with the legal and financial structure. The 2016 memorandum of understanding established a 10-year framework totaling $38 billion, comprising $3.3b. annually in Foreign Military financing and $500 million annually for missile defense cooperation. 

This is a financing mechanism tied to procurement of US services, and production connected to American defense systems and American firms, it is NOT general budget support. A significant portion of what is commonly called “aid” functions as sustained demand for US manufacturing and supply chains, supporting the American defense industrial base.

That is the industrial dimension. There is also the strategic dimension, which is more consequential. In a region that repeatedly generates global shocks, the United States has two basic options: deploy major US assets forward, or rely on capable allies who carry the operational burden locally while remaining interoperable with US systems. The first option is slow to surge, expensive to sustain, and puts Americans in harm’s way.

Effectively, Israel’s continuous present, fully engaged allied force in the region substitutes for that kind of US forward deployment. A “USS Israel” American aircraft carrier, so to speak. And unlike an actual carrier strike group, whose annual operating costs run into the billions of dollars, Israel delivers that strategic presence at a fraction of the cost while placing no American sailors or pilots in the line of fire.

This is a strategic, practical, cost-saving measure that is anything but charity, which is wholly not captured by the term “aid.” It obscures reciprocity and, in doing so, undermines the durability of public support. Labels become shorthand, shorthand becomes perception, and perception becomes policy. When the label is wrong, the coalition built on it becomes fragile.

All of this was true even before the war with Iran. But the recent US-Israel coordination in confronting Iran has made the point even harder to ignore. When set against the cold shoulder and strategic impotence shown by older allies, whose defense Washington underwrites at far greater cost each year within the NATO framework, the value proposition of the US-Israel partnership comes into even sharper focus. 

Far from being a burden on America, Israel is one of the most cost-effective strategic investments the United States makes anywhere in the world.