Throughout my college years, Israel’s embassy in Washington, D.C., became more than just a diplomatic post — it became a home. It was a place of grounding and belonging amid the turbulence of campus life. From volunteer work to student leadership forums, from Hanukkah and Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrations to moments of crisis, advocacy, and solidarity, the embassy staff embraced me like family. Within its walls, I feel not only humbled but empowered to contribute to something larger than myself, something noble and necessary.

Two individuals, in particular, embodied the spirit of that home: Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim. While I never had the chance to know Sarah personally, I had the privilege of working closely with Yaron, whose composure and deep passion left a lasting impression on me. His bright eyes and radiant smile greeted me the first time I walked through the embassy’s doors as a volunteer, and never failed to do so afterward. In the harrowing days following October 7, 2023, when a coalition of students eagerly rallied to support the embassy, it was Yaron who welcomed us. He didn’t just open the door to a building — he invited us into a mission.

On our first day, Yaron led us into a room where students, embassy staff, and diplomats worked side-by-side for hours. The work was often emotionally taxing — each name, each story, each image of an Israeli victim, weighed heavily on us. Still, we returned the next day, and the day after that, for many weeks. Yaron was always there, smiling, ready to greet and lead.

It may sound strange to admit, but looking back, I miss those days — some of the most tragic days I’ve lived through. My commutes to the embassy were often in tears: for the murdered, the kidnapped, the wounded, the grieving families, and the ravaged kibbutzim. Yet inside the embassy, something sacred took shape. We listened to testimonies, wrote, edited, created — becoming keyboard warriors committed to truth and dignity at a time when the definition of those very words felt absent.

To Yaron, we weren’t mere volunteers or Israel advocates — we were partners, friends, and, in time, family. Amid both moral and physical crisis, he helped us find steady ground. He gave us structure and direction. He helped us translate pain into purpose. He empowered us to tell Israel’s story with clarity and conviction, to stand up against lies, and to defend the Jewish people with both compassion and courage.

The bond I formed with Yaron was forged in fire — born of grief, purpose, and shared resolve — and is one I will carry with me always. Alongside the embassy staff, he helped unify and empower a group of students reeling from trauma. Yaron reminded us that resilience is not born from comfort, but from moral clarity and strength of spirit. He reminded us that defending what is right is a duty that transcends borders and spans generations. As we now mourn the brutal act that took his and Sarah’s lives, that lesson becomes all the more urgent — and must never be forgotten.

That’s what makes the truth so devastating — a weight that sits like a stone in my heart: Yaron and his partner Sarah, whom he planned to propose to in Jerusalem this week, were taken by the very hatred they dedicated their lives to confronting. This wasn’t senseless violence in a vacuum. It was fueled by the same antisemitism and the same ideological rot that has seeped beyond Israel’s borders, infiltrated our institutions, and has now metastasized into violence that has taken their precious lives.

In memory of Yaron and Sarah, we must not look away. Every global citizen — and especially every Jew — must confront the radicalization seeping through our schools, our streets, and our institutions. We must reject the normalization of antisemitism and the moral cowardice that hides behind slogans like “academic freedom” or “free expression” to excuse this hatred and allow it to fester.

We must speak the truth and pursue the peace that Yaron lived for. Yes, we must fight for peace — because this very threat, the brutal murder of innocent, beautiful Israeli and Jewish lives, even in the streets of the free world, is now our reality. May his memory, and Sarah’s, be not only a blessing but a call to action for all humanity.

Sabrina Soffer is a recent graduate of George Washington University and works with ISGAP in Washington, D.C.

The post I Knew Yaron Lischinsky Personally; This Is What the World Lost first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

As we prepare to mark Memorial Day, many Americans are looking forward to barbecues and sales. “To Americans, Memorial Day weekend marks the unofficial beginning of summer,” reads a description of the day posted on the websites of US embassies around the world.

That description goes on to say, “But at its heart, Memorial Day is a day when Americans reflect on the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in military service.”

The truth, however, is this latter framing of Memorial Day is mainly relegated to military families and towns that are home to military bases. For most others, remembering those who lost their lives for our country is not more than an afterthought.

For years, as an American, I admit that I almost always didn’t give this a second thought. It was just the way it was. Most major or existential military conflicts happened far away (not a few hours from home) and decades in the past, and even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only required a tiny portion of Americans to serve and fight — meaning few have a personal connection to loss or even to military service, or are acutely conscious of its importance.

However, as an American who now lives in Israel, my perspective on Memorial Day, and how we mark it in the United States has shifted dramatically— and not only due to my personal stakes and tragic losses in Israel’s current war. My son is a soldier in the IDF — as are thousands of the students and alumni from the network of educational institutions that I oversee. Sadly, since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023, we have lost 20 alumni and 38 first-degree relatives of our students and faculty, including many men with wives and families who were serving reserve duty.

This personal connection to service and loss is not unique. Because Israel is a country of only about 10 million people, military service is a requirement for much of the population — and especially due to the ongoing war, most people know someone who has been killed in service to the country.

But putting aside the aspect of personal connection, the day is monumental because of the solemn way Israel marks it; even visitors feel the emotions of the day. Shops and restaurants are closed. Names of the dead are read aloud in public places for hours on end, and at two different points, sirens ring out across the country, and everyone comes to a stop to remember the fallen.

The day is heavy and difficult, but it is also infused with meaning. The knowledge that so many have died — whether recently or decades ago — so that life can continue, is motivating, helping people recognize their talents, opportunities, and blessings. There is also a communal aspect of the day, with the awareness that these sacrifices affect everyone’s ability to live safely and securely, helping create bonds in society, and reducing loneliness in general.

It is this feeling of community and having people they can count on that — year after year — leads to Israel being ranked high in the global happiness index, despite the difficulty of daily life.

This meaning, purpose, and communal aspect of the day is something that we can all learn from, especially in the US, where many suffer from lack of purpose, and loneliness is considered a public health emergency.

Leaders, communities, schools, and even individual families in the US should consider taking small steps to help bring back meaning to Memorial Day.

This can, of course, be done through memorial ceremonies or learning more about the fallen in schools. But it would be most effective if such efforts met most of the public where they will be on Memorial Day — at malls, parks, and on the road to take advantage of the day off from work. Holding a moment of silence or hanging up posters with stories and photos of the fallen would go a long way in reminding people about the true purpose of the day.

Being more aware of these sacrifices could, in turn, be the reminder that many Americans need to appreciate our opportunities despite the clear challenges in our society. It could also be a reminder that we as individuals are not alone, giving us the strength to do our best and continue improving our own lives along with our communities and country. This, after all, is why more than 600,000 Americans have paid the ultimate price since World War I. We must remember that — at the very least on Memorial Day.

Rabbi Dr. Kenneth Brander is the President of Ohr Torah Stone, an international network of 32 religious educational, leadership, and social action programs including the Ohr Torah Interfaith Center. He was previously Vice President of Yeshiva University.

The post More Americans Should Take a Lesson From Israel and Find True Purpose on Memorial Day first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

In May 2025, following a deadly terrorist attack on Pahalgam in Kashmir, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, conducted strikes deep within Pakistani territory, and declared that any future terrorist attack would henceforth be considered an act of war. These measures reflect a doctrinal shift from a policy of deterrence to one of “compellence” or coercion.

India has also unveiled unprecedented upgrades to its military capabilities that are part of a comprehensive organizational reform. India is positioning itself as a global military and technological power that is operating under a sovereign and independent strategy. This shift in India’s doctrinal approach reflects a continuation of its response to Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. According to Indian nationalists, Israel’s response to Hamas’s massive assault served as inspiration for an uncompromising policy towards Islamic terrorism.

The events that began on April 22 with the deadly terrorist attack on Pahalgam in Kashmir — an assault that resulted in the deaths of 26 tourists, most of whom were Indian citizens — escalated within days into a severe regional crisis. Within hours, India had suspended the historic Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, closed the main border crossing at Attari, revoked visas for Pakistani nationals, and reduced Pakistan’s diplomatic presence in India.

Subsequent airstrikes and armed drone attacks targeted military installations and command centers in Pakistan, including some deep within Punjab province. Pakistan responded with artillery fire and the deployment of unmanned systems toward Indian targets.

Against this backdrop, the ceasefire that was achieved is notable for its restraint. According to both India and Pakistan, the initiative came from the Pakistani side, but the intention was mutual — to halt the escalation without committing to a political process. No date was set for talks, and regional issues such as Kashmir or cross-border terrorism were not mentioned.

India’s most dramatic move did not occur on the battlefield but in the doctrinal arena. Shortly before the ceasefire announcement, the Indian government issued an official statement declaring that “from now on, any terrorist attack against India will be considered an act of war and will be responded to accordingly.”

Behind this wording lies a new strategic concept: the institutionalized use of the principle of the right to self-defense as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, eliminating the traditional distinction between terrorism and a clear state threat.

This is one of the most assertive steps taken by a liberal democracy in the global security arena in recent years. It indicates a profound change in the Indian security establishment’s mindset. India seeks to extricate itself from the loop wherein “restraint is the responsible tool.” It is signaling that restraint is not only ineffective but may be perceived as surrender.

In practical terms, this change has several implications. First, India will conduct proactive military responses in the future, including to attacks not carried out by regular armies but by organizations supported or sponsored by Pakistan. Second, the Indian army is expanding its operational scope to include areas deep inside enemy territory, and it will employ special forces, targeted strikes, and possibly cognitive warfare to conduct such operations. Finally, there is a cumulative impact on the regional balance, as neighboring countries will need to prepare for a reality in which terrorism is not just an internal problem but grounds for declaring interstate conflict.

Breaking the framework: Undermining conflict management agreements

The current crisis has not only exposed the deepening rift between India and Pakistan but also directly undermined the validity of two foundational documents that have governed their conflict management over decades: the Indus Waters Treaty and the Shimla Agreement.

One of India’s first moves following the Pahalgam attack was to suspend its commitments under the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation. This move places India in a complex position. On the one hand, it strengthens its leverage over Pakistan. On the other, it risks international criticism for violating humanitarian conventions and setting a precedent for weaponizing natural resources.

Indian political and military officials have also hinted that the Shimla Agreement is “dead.” This is a bold statement, given the agreement’s longstanding status since 1972 as an anchor for bilateral dispute resolution and preservation of the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir.

Upgrading the Indian military

To understand India’s response to the crisis, one must consider the strategic reform its defense establishment has undergone over the past decade. India is pursuing the establishment of integrated theater commands, multi-domain force structures, and the intensified adoption of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, hypersonic missiles, and sea-based nuclear delivery platforms.

The transition from restraint and legacy conflict management to compellence, flexible deterrence, and operational pressure is a direct expression of India’s new security doctrine, which aims to create a networked, proactive military force that can respond in real time.

The crisis has served not only to test India’s deterrence posture but also to expose its maturing organizational reforms. Over the past decade, India has emerged as a military and technological powerhouse with global-level strategic capabilities. While the world’s attention has been focused primarily on the US-China rivalry, India has been quietly but steadily building a layered security architecture that combines nuclear capability, advanced technology, and indigenous development in the space, maritime, and ballistic missile domains.

The capabilities described above reflect a quiet but systematic process of building multidimensional strategic power. India is no longer merely a regional actor focused on local security. It aspires to position itself as a global influencer that engages with both China and the West.

India’s unique model lies in its blend of cutting-edge technology, indigenous development, and deterrence-driven security policy. It does not belong to traditional military alliances, yet it maintains strategic connectivity with powers such as the US, Russia, France, and Israel. It is not technologically dependent on any one partner, yet it leverages cooperation judiciously.

The possession of hypersonic missiles, ASAT capabilities, and nuclear submarines is not, however, enough by itself. They must be embedded in a broader joint operational framework and be supported by industrial strategy and a unified command. India in 2025 is not merely showcasing innovation. It is also presenting the organizational infrastructure necessary to translate these capabilities into strategic impact on both regional and global scales.

International perceptions and the battle for a responsible image

As India adopts aggressive and unprecedented security measures, it is also engaged in a parallel struggle — narrative and diplomatic — to maintain its image as a responsible and measured global actor. Official Indian discourse consistently emphasizes the principle of “proportional response” and India’s inherent right to self-defense in the face of state-sponsored terrorism.

India is being cautious not to portray itself as the instigator of total war or as deviating from norms expected of democratic states. The decision to announce a new counter-terrorism doctrine while simultaneously halting escalation through direct military channels reflects a strategic balancing act between force projection and international legitimacy.

India is sending a dual message: that it will not hesitate to use force when necessary, but it operates within, and sometimes seeks to refine, existing international norms.

The ongoing challenge

The ceasefire was not accompanied by any agreement on the conflict’s core issues — Kashmir, cross-border terrorism, or international oversight. This raises the question of whether the next crisis is only a matter of time. The strategic reality between India and Pakistan remains fragile, marked by distrust and the constant risk of escalation.

The implications of India’s doctrinal shift go beyond bilateral dynamics. Defining terrorism as an act of war may set a precedent that invites responses from other states, possibly destabilizing existing principles of international law. Suspending the historic water-sharing treaty with Pakistan may become a dangerous precedent for using essential resources as punitive tools in other conflict zones.

For India, these are not reactive measures to a single event but part of a broader strategy to assert a sovereign assertive security policy that is driven by nationalist currents, regional ambitions, and a desire to reshape the strategic order in South Asia.

In the coming weeks and months, India faces a dual challenge: to maintain deterrence against Pakistan without sliding into a large-scale war, and to convince the international community that its actions are not impulsive reactions but components of a deliberate state strategy.

Dr. Lauren Dagan Amos is a member of the Deborah Forum, a lecturer and a researcher in the Department of Political Science and the Security Studies Program at Bar-Ilan University. She specializes in Indian foreign policy. A much longer version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Did the Oct. 7 Massacre Also Affect India’s Foreign Policy? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.