Short Strategic Analyses on Recent Developments

After the Midterms: Israel Without American Backing

Following Democrats winning both houses of Congress in the midterm elections, Vice President JD Vance attributed the loss primarily to the war in Iran. He argued Republicans could win back defected voters by ending the conflict, addressing the cost of living, prioritizing America first, and changing the U.S. relationship with Israel - an analysis President Trump called "largely true."

Consequently, Israel is no longer merely a partisan debate in Washington, but an electoral liability for both parties. In July we wrote What Will Israel's National Security Look Like Without American Backing? We argued that Israel should prepare now for a future in which the United States is no longer its special ally.

No other power or coalition can replace what Washington provides. Without full American backing, a proactive security doctrine risks a chronic war of attrition, international isolation, and shortages of munitions and manpower. The Iran campaign showed that battlefield superiority does not turn into political outcomes on its own. We called for domestic production of munitions and spare parts, wider regional ties, soft-power tools and a coordinated campaign against Iran, engagement with the tech and AI companies that have become geostrategic actors, and fairer sharing of the national burden at home.

Israel should also stop treating its international standing as a public-diplomacy problem. As we concluded then: "A responsible state does not ask how to preserve the old order, but how to secure itself when that order changes." The midterm results make that question more urgent.

Israel's Election: Where Do We Go from Here?

The Israeli election was seen as a fateful moment of historic decision for Israel. The question at its heart, it seemed, was not only who would form the next government, but where Israel is headed. Precisely for that reason, it is ironic that the results have left Israel in a state of deep political uncertainty: an overall anti-Netanyahu majority (67 to 53), a pro-Netanyahu Jewish majority (53 to 48), or an anti-Netanyahu Zionist majority excluding the Haredim (48 to 40). 

The political system appears to face three options: 1. A Zionist unity government; 2. A change-bloc government supported by the Arab parties; 3. Another election.

Another election would be devastating, yet the first two options look unlikely. 

In our new paper, 'National Resilience in Days of Polarization' we argued that the way forward depends on separating the two ideas - Zionism and Mamlachtiyut. Zionism is a commitment to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it is the source of the willingness to carry the security and economic burden. Mamlachtiyut is the civic ethos of shared responsibility for the state, its institutions and all its citizens. Zionism can be the foundation of a unity government. Mamlachtiyut is the principle that lets it open up to a broader civic partnership.

Because neither tribal camp can decisively defeat the other, a core unity government uniting Netanyahu, Eisenkot, and Bennett could tackle burden-sharing and economic recovery. However, these three parties hold only 60 seats (one seat short to establish a government). Every natural "fourth party" brings steep demands or heavy baggage. 

Separately, the exceptional Arab turnout makes the "Ra'am party model" of functional partnership a structural question. Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas poses not only an alternative to the confrontational approach for the other Arab party, The United Arab Party, but also challenges the Haredi model: budgets in exchange for integration, rather than budgets that enable separation. Interestingly, our mamlachtiyut simulator at  mamlachti.com ranks Ra'am as more mamlachti than the Haredi parties. We made this case in February - Mansour Abbas's Model: Better Than the Haredi Model.

Each of these options is unlikely on its own. Together they may make sense. A broad unity government would not depend on Ra'am, so it could provide the political cover to bring Ra'am in. In turn, opening the door to Arab partnership would untie the fourth-party knot and free the coalition from dependence on sectoral partners. The document is now being circulated among decision makers and may be published in the coming days.

Fighting Antisemitism: Doubling Down on Failing Tactics?

eJewishPhilanthropy reported this week on JFNA's $35 million Frontline initiative, which places 100 new antisemitism and community-relations staff in local federations. Several experts warned that it may repeat approaches that have not worked. In the report, Astarta’s CEO Eran Shayshon argued that federations must study Frontline's effectiveness, "because it has the potential to propagate the very thing it aims to eradicate. Oftentimes advocacy organizations are doing more damage than actually helping, reacting loudly to marginal incidents turns them into mainstream headlines."

Eran explained that the BDS campaign "is primarily a negative branding campaign." Its main goal is not an economic boycott but to associate Israel with the discourse of boycotts, so that the brand erodes. Delegitimization also takes local forms. In the U.S. it runs through identity politics that cast Jews as privileged and colonial, and in Ireland it draws on the struggle against Britain. Hasbara does not answer this. Instead, advocates should "shatter the myth that the loudest online voices represent all American voices," show that anti-Israel views are not the majority position, frame antisemitism as a threat to values Americans cherish, and empower "the silent Jewish majority." An Astarta paper developing this approach is in the making.

Parent-Dome Now Covers Private, Religious and Charter Schools

Astarta’s Parent-Dome  began as an AI-tool for Jewish parents whose children attend public schools. Its plans assumed a public district: superintendents, school boards and district policy. Many Jewish families, though, choose other schools. Parent-Dome now serves charter, secular private and religious private schools (Catholic, Christian, Muslim and others), plus parents who aren't sure how their school is run. Each plan follows that school's own route, such as the handbook, head of school and board, without inventing officials or making legal claims.

BEWARE OF IMITATIONS: An unauthorized AI-powered tool mimicking Parent Dome’s interface is currently being circulated. It is important to understand that Atchalta’s secret sauce isn't in the code or the interface. It's in the conceptual framework, strategic thinking, and carefully designed system prompts that power the platform.

Copying the interface does not mean replicating the intelligence behind it. Beware of knockoffs.