Uncategorized
With ‘Let It Be Morning’ and ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ Israeli filmmakers are winning awards for portraying Palestinian stories
(JTA) — Years ago, the Israeli filmmaker Orit Fouks Rotem took a class led by director Eran Kolirin, best known as the maker of “The Band’s Visit.” This month, movies by both filmmakers are getting theatrical rollouts in the United States.
On a recent Zoom call, Palestinian author Sayed Kashua joked: “Was that his class — how to use a Palestinian story?”
Kashua was smiling on Zoom as he said it — he is, after all, known for his often fatalistic sense of humor, particularly when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the author had given his blessing for Kolirin to make an adaptation of his novel “Let It Be Morning,” and said he loved the final result.
But like most jokes, this one had a kernel of truth: Israel’s two most recent Oscar submissions, hitting New York’s Quad Cinema within a week of each other, both — to varying degrees — tell Palestinian stories.
“Let It Be Morning” is a dark comedy about an Arab Israeli village that has suddenly and with no explanation been cordoned off from the rest of the country by the Israeli military. This event forces its Palestinian residents, including a protagonist trying to return to his comfortable middle-class life in Jerusalem, to reckon with how their dignity as citizens has been denied to them by the mechanisms of the Israeli occupation. At the Quad, the film is accompanied by a retrospective of Kolirin’s work, including “The Band’s Visit,” the basis for the Tony Award-winning musical; the retrospective is sponsored by the Israeli consulate in New York.
The all-female cast of “Cinema Sabaya,” a mix of Jewish and Arab actresses, in a film directed by Orit Fouks Rotem. (Courtesy of Kino Lorber)
The following week will see the opening of Rotem’s film, “Cinema Sabaya.” It follows a group of eight women, some Jewish and some Arab and Palestinian, who bond with each other while taking a filmmaking class in a community center in the Israeli city of Hadera. Cast member Dana Ivgy, who plays the class’s instructor, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the filming experience “felt like how living in Israel should feel,” adding, “We have more women in the film than in the Israeli government.”
Stylistically, the two films couldn’t be more different. “Let It Be Morning” is a tightly plotted narrative with boldly realized characters; almost all of its dialogue is in Arabic. “Cinema Sabaya” is a loose, heavily improvisational piece that is almost entirely set in one room, and is mostly in Hebrew (although in one tense early scene, the characters debate whether to conduct their class in Hebrew or Arabic). One is a dry, Kafkaesque satire; the other is an intimate, naturalistic drama.
But together, the films provide a snapshot of the delicate dance Israeli filmmakers must perform in the current climate. On the one hand, these art-house directors are being feted on the international stage for their empathetic storytelling that incorporates or even centers entirely on Palestinian characters. But on the other, they’re being attacked by government officials for their perceived insufficient loyalty — and their films’ very status as “Israeli” is being questioned, too, sometimes by their own cast and crew.
“Everyone can call it what they want,” Rotem said of her film. “I’m an Israeli and it’s in Israel, but I have partners who call themselves Palestinians, and some of them call themselves Arabs, and each one defined herself. I think it’s really how it should be.”
“A film does not have an identity,” Kolirin insisted in an interview with JTA. “It is a citizen of the screen.”
Eran Kolirin accepted the award for Best Director for “Let It Be Morning” at the 2021 Ophir Awards in Tel Aviv on October 5, 2021. (Tomer Neuberg/ Flash90)
Kolirin isn’t a fan of the label “Israeli film” in this case, even though that is how “Let It Be Morning” was categorized at its 2021 Cannes Film Festival premiere; its own press notes also list Israel as the “country of production.” That Cannes screening took place shortly after Israel’s deadly conflict with Hamas that killed more than 250 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and around a dozen Israelis. The events turned Cannes into a political firestorm when the film’s Palestinian cast refused to attend the premiere.
“We cannot ignore the contradiction of the film’s entry into Cannes under the label of an ‘Israeli film’ when Israel continues to carry its decades-long colonial campaign of ethnic cleansing, expulsion, and apartheid against us — the Palestinian people,” the cast’s statement read in part.
“Each time the film industry assumes that we and our work fall under the ethno-national label of ‘Israeli,’ it further perpetuates an unacceptable reality that imposes on us, Palestinian artists with Israeli citizenship,” the statement continues, calling on “international artistic and cultural institutions” to “amplify the voices of Palestinian artists and creatives.”
Kolirin himself supported the cast’s action. He knew they were grieving over the outbreak of violence in Gaza and didn’t want to put themselves in a situation where “some politician is going to wave a flag over their head or whatever.”
What’s more, he said, the status of “Let It Be Morning” as an “Israeli” film, despite the fact that around half the crew was Palestinian, was not his decision: “The film was not submitted to Cannes as an Israeli film,” he said. “You know, you fill in the form: ‘Which were the countries that gave money?’” In this case, the answer was Israel and France.
Most of the cast later did not attend the Ophir Awards ceremony, Israel’s equivalent to the Oscars voted on by its filmmaking academy, where “Morning” won the top prize (which automatically made it Israel’s Oscar submission for that year). In solidarity at the awards, Kolirin read aloud a statement from his lead actress, Juna Suleiman, decrying Israel’s “active efforts to erase Palestinian identity” and what she called “ethnic cleansing.”
Orit Fouks Rotem (Courtesy of Kino Lorber)
“Cinema Sabaya” hasn’t played host to as much offscreen controversy, but its vision of Israeli multiculturalism is still inherently political. Rotem’s mother is a local government adviser on women’s issues in Hadera, and the film was inspired by her experience participating in a photography class designed to unite Jewish and Arab women. Rotem herself later led filmmaking classes in a similar vein as research for “Sabaya.”
In the film, Ivgy’s character, who is modeled on Rotem, instructs her class to film their home lives, while secretly hoping to make a movie from their efforts. When her desire to do so is revealed, the women in the class feel betrayed: They thought they were just making films for themselves, not for their stories to be told by someone else.
Similarly, Rotem said that working with Arab and Palestinian actresses made her “aware to the fact that I can’t really tell their story.” Her solution was to allow the performers — some of whom are well-known activists who had to think twice about appearing in an Israeli movie — to voice their own opinions, and to establish the necessary trust to allow them to be unscripted on camera.
She theorizes that “Cinema Sabaya” has been so well received in Israel because “it doesn’t say ‘occupation, occupation, occupation.’ It says ‘humanity,’ so people are less afraid.” (She also noted that, in real life, the women who attended her filmmaking classes bristled at her initial suggestion to make a documentary about them, telling her to fictionalize their stories instead — which she did.)
Lately the Israeli government has a tendency to view its filmmaking class as agitators unworthy of national support, particularly when they make films criticizing the occupation. Former Culture Minister Miri Regev often disparaged films she thought were bad for Israel, including celebrated international hits such as “Foxtrot” and “Synonyms.” Her current successor, Miki Zohar, has already threatened the makers of a new documentary about the West Bank city of Hebron, saying the movie smears the military and that the directors might have to return government funds.
In recent years, Israel’s culture ministry has pushed two new controversial proposals: a grant program earmarked for those who make films in settlements, which are considered illegal under international law; and a form pledging not to make films “offensive” to Israel or the military that filmmakers would be required to sign in order to apply for certain grants, which many directors have likened to a loyalty oath. For years, some of the country’s largest grantmakers have required applicants to sign a form promising to represent their projects as Israeli on the national stage.
There has also been an effort among some members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new right-wing government to end funding to public broadcaster Kan, which the country’s film industry views as another attack on its free expression.
“Kan has all this dialogue,” Ivgy said. “It has Jewish and religious and Arab and Palestinian, for kids and for grownups. And nothing is taboo there. I feel that it’s very dangerous to close that option down.”
Many Israeli filmmakers are fighting back. Hundreds, including Kolirin and Rotem, have refused to sign the ministry’s pledge, and many have also protested the settlement grant program. Nadav Lapid, one of the country’s most celebrated and outspoken directors, harshly critiqued government restrictions placed on his own work in the 2021 drama “Ahed’s Knee,” which went on to win a special prize at Cannes.
Kolirin said he had recently been on a call with several Israeli filmmakers looking to further organize against artistic restrictions, and that it had given him hope. “I had this feeling of some optimism, which I didn’t have for a long time,” he said. But he didn’t mince words when discussing Israel’s new governing coalition, which he likened to “a circus of mad dogs unleashed.”
Rotem said that the current government is “very, very bad and scary,” but that it has only strengthened her resolve to make political films.
“For me, it’s also political to show women in Israel in a deep way: I mean Arabs and Jews,” she said. “Because I don’t think there are enough films that are doing that.”
For Kashua, a veteran TV writer and opinion columnist, the question of identity in Israeli and Palestinian filmmaking is even more pronounced. After a long career of trying to write about the Palestinian experience in Hebrew as a way of reaching Israelis, he left Israel for the United States in 2014, becoming discouraged by an incident in which Jewish extremists burned a Palestinian teenager alive as revenge after Palestinian terrorists kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Now based in St. Louis, he has worked as a writer and story editor on Israeli series that center on both Palestinian and Jewish stories — including the global hit “Shtisel,” which focuses on haredi Orthodox Jews, and its upcoming spinoff, along with “Madrasa,” a young-adult series about a bilingual Hebrew-Arabic school.
Israeli filmmakers choosing to center Palestinian stories can be its own radical political act, Kashua believes. He noted that the dialogue in “Morning” is almost entirely in Arabic, a language that Israel demoted from national language status in 2018 — doubly ironic as he had deliberately chosen to write his original novel in Hebrew.
“The idea that this film is ‘Israeli’ — it really contradicts the idea of Israel being a purely Jewish state,” Kashua said. He added that, while he had initially hoped a Palestinian director might have adapted his novel, he was ultimately happy with Kolirin’s approach.
“I truly love the movie, and it’s barely Orientalist,” he joked, echoing Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said’s famous book about how a Western lens on Eastern cultures can be reductive and harmful. “Which is a big achievement for an Israeli filmmaker.”
—
The post With ‘Let It Be Morning’ and ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ Israeli filmmakers are winning awards for portraying Palestinian stories appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Deliberately Indifferent’: Trump Administration Sues Harvard University Over Campus Antisemitism
Graduating students rise in support of 13 students not able to graduate because of their participation in anti-Israel protests during the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University ignored antisemitism while extreme anti-Zionist activists subjected Jewish students to harassment and discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws as well as the institution’s own purported commitment to anti-racism, the Trump administration alleged in a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts on Friday.
The complaint demands the recovery of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants and other federal support Harvard received during the years in which it allegedly neglected to correct the hostile campus environment.
The lawsuit marks a shift in the Trump administration’s previous strategy of confiscating Harvard’s federal money and then defending the action in court. That policy has yielded mixed results, making a strong political statement while leaving Harvard strong enough to mobilize its GDP-sized wealth to sidestep the worst potential consequences by issuing bonds or bringing the matter before judges who have been sympathetic to their case.
It has also alienated progressives, including some Jewish students, unwilling to validate the administration’s coupling addressing campus antisemitism with its parallel ambition of reforming higher education in a manner preferred by political conservatives. Others have said that they sustained collateral damage when funds were cut from their own departments and programs.
“Harvard has been and remains deliberately indifferent to what its own Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias deemed the ‘exclusion of Israeli or Zionist students from social spaces and extracurricular activities,’” US Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argued in the filing. “Harvard has failed to enforce its rules or meaningfully discipline the mobs that occupy its buildings and terrorize its Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard instead rewarded students who assaulted, harassed, or intimidated their Jewish and Israeli peers.”
In a statement, Harvard contested the government’s account of the facts, saying it “deeply cares about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.” It also argued that it enacted “substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus.”
On Friday, Middle East expert and writer Alex Joffe told The Algemeiner that time will tell whether the government’s lawsuit is effective in addressing antisemitism at Harvard.
“The new filed lawsuit represents another volley in what has become a well-established pattern of federal allegations and Ivy League stonewalling,” he said. “Universities appear to have decided that the Trump administration is too preoccupied with other problems, not least of all Iran and battles with Congress, including Republicans, to pursue its reforms of the higher education industrial complex and are planning to wait it out.”
He added, however, that “the national security implications of the lawsuit come into focus,” noting that “the pro-Hamas movement is shown to be comprised of exactly the same protest groups and funders as the pro-Iran and anti-ICE movement, including the ANSWER Coalition, Code Pink, The People’s Forum, and others, all connected via personnel and Chinese Communist Party funders.”
There has been a major overlap between campus groups that participated in pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests throughout the Gaza war and those that have been expressing support for the Iranian regime amid the current US-Israeli campaign against Iran.
Harvard University student Tejas Billas added, “This lawsuit largely copies Harvard’s own task force report, which found widespread discrimination against Jews and Israelis. It’s hard to say that Harvard has done all it can to combat antisemitism while many of Harvard’s proposed actions to improve the campus have yet to be implemented.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism acknowledged that the university administration’s handling of campus antisemitism fell well below its obligations under both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its own nondiscrimination policies.
In a 300-plus-page report, the task force compiled a comprehensive record of antisemitic incidents on Harvard’s campus in recent years — from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee’s endorsement of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist atrocities in Israel, to an anti-Zionist faculty group’s sharing an antisemitic cartoon depicting Jews as murderers of people of color. The report identified Harvard’s past refusal to afford Jews the same protections against discrimination enjoyed by other minority groups as a key source of its problem.
Throughout that time, according to a 2024 report by the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Harvard repeatedly misrepresented its handling of the explosion of hate and rule breaking, launching a campaign of deceit and spin to cover up what ultimately became the biggest scandal in higher education.
The committee charged that Harvard formed an Antisemitism Advisory Group (AAG) largely for show and did not consult its members when Jewish students were subject to verbal abuse and harassment, a time, its members felt, when its counsel was most needed. The advisory group went on to recommend nearly a dozen measures for addressing the problem and offered other guidance, the report said, but it was excluded from high-level discussions which preceded, for example, the controversial congressional testimony of former president Claudine Gay, in which the chief executive said choosing to punish antisemitism “depends on the context.”
The public has not learned anything new about Harvard, Sabrina Soffer, research fellow for the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told The Algemeiner.
“The federal government is reaching conclusions drawn years ago but campus antisemitism at Harvard rages on,” she said. “The effort is appreciated, but the fight against antisemitism must not be reduced to a game of “Whack-A-Mole” — government should enact real enforcement mechanisms that correct both faculty and student conduct. This suit, if it succeeds, could achieve that, as it calls for an independent monitor of conditions at Harvard and other actions to correct the campus climate, but Harvard has proved adept at avoiding accountability. It may do so again.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
We need to talk about New Jersey’s Jewish master of literature. No, not that one
Philip Roth and Judy Blume were born five years apart in the 1930s. Both grew up in New Jersey, in the crucible of Jewish American suburban assimilation. Both were haunted by the Holocaust, news of which trickled stateside just as they were nearing adulthood. And both are literary icons.
But they’re icons of different kinds.
We see Roth as a giant of American Jewish literature, and Blume as a giant of American children’s literature. Within that distinction is a kind of tacit hierarchy. Roth was perceived as a writer for serious adults with serious concerns; Blume, as a writer for girls with girlish concerns. When Roth wrote about diaphragms (see Goodbye, Columbus) it was a bracing examination of shifting sexual mores at an inflection point in American culture. When Blume did, in Forever, it was sex education with a narrative twist.
I’ve been reading Mark Oppenheimer’s new biography Judy Blume: A Life, and thinking a lot about that hierarchy. I’ve read and loved a decent amount of Philip Roth, and a lot of Judy Blume. (I’ve written about both of them for this publication.) But I have a stronger relationship with her work than with his. One measure of a great novel is the dimensionality with which a reader experiences it. Do you see the characters as you read, smell their surroundings, hear their music? With Blume, my answer is always “yes.” With Roth, it’s “sometimes.”
So why have I, like many others, tended to think of Roth as an Important Writer, and Blume as merely an important writer to me?
This is a classic conundrum when it comes to children’s literature. As Alison Lurie wrote in her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Foreign Affairs — which I am, by coincidence, also reading right now — children’s literature is the “stepdaughter grudgingly tolerated” in any English department. We must read extensively to grow up well, but there is a sense that anyone who stays overly attached to the things they read in those early years has somehow gone developmentally awry.
The book that has most influenced me is almost certainly Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery, but for much of my adult life, I would never have named it if a stranger asked me about my favorite novel. Not just because doing so would have seemed like a bit of a faux pas — what if that stranger thought I was childish, rather than merely open to the joys of childlike wonder? — but because it felt private. Like the part of me that loves that red-headed orphan beyond measure was too personal to share.
Roth and Blume both made careers out of writing about things that felt too personal to share. Both were taboo breakers, who experienced the vicious backlash that can accompany such transgression.
But Blume broke taboos in what might be seen as safer ways. Roth engaged with the unspeakable; she attacked the impolite. By being open about the stranger parts of girlhood — the bleeding, the sexual experimentation, the friendships that collapse in ways neither party really understands — her work made it feel a little safer to be a girl. The intimate things could now be intimate, but shared.
A tragic literary paradox is that women writers often need to win male readers to be taken seriously. Once they’re known as a writer who women like, the spectre of “chick lit” attaches itself to their work, a phenomenon that predates the development of that label by centuries. Aphra Behn, one of the first professional women writers, broke boundaries in the 17th century only to be dismissed by the 18th as a lightweight who was too open about sex. I once spent a six hour drive from Chicago to St. Louis fighting with my progressive-minded college boyfriend about his reluctance to read Jane Austen. The fight wasn’t really about him; Persuasion was never going to be quite his style. It was about my sense that the things I liked lost respect in some vaguely defined public eye because people like me liked them.
On a certain literary level, it’s strange to argue that Judy Blume should be considered as great an American Jewish literary master as Philip Roth. Her sentences are simpler. So are her themes. Her approach to great American issues, like race, can be hamhanded. (To be fair, Roth’s could, too.)
But on another level, I think it’s not just reasonable but right to define great literature in part by its impact. Books are meant to deepen our connection to the world. They are meant to brighten our experience of life. They are meant to help us understand ourselves and our neighbors. Few American authors have done either of those things more powerfully, or for more people, than Judy Blume.
The release of Oppenheimer’s book has been clouded by the mystery of why Blume fell out with the author after reviewing his first draft. As a reader, I understand: Nothing is more enticing than a mystery. But I find it, frankly, sad that the first in-depth accounting of how Blume came to be a writer of such impact has been clouded by the desire for an accounting of what mysterious rifts opened between her and her biographer.
By 1964, Oppenheimer writes, Blume’s “specific milieu of suburban Jewish middle-class ease was nationally recognizable,” thanks to Roth’s work. When Blume had not yet started to write, Roth had produced a “shorthand for a kind of tacky, nouveau riche suburban Jewish experience.”
But he had done so for only a select portion of that populace: the young man on the come-up, the wealthy, bored girl trying to throw off her parents’ values without breaking herself off from their comfortable lifestyle.
The unspoken others in that vision — the basically good mothers, the mostly obedient daughters — needed their own chance to be recognizable, too. They were just as interesting, only, perhaps, in quieter ways. The literature of American Jewish life isn’t just more complete because Blume gave them voices. It’s better, too.
The post We need to talk about New Jersey’s Jewish master of literature. No, not that one appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel Continues to Kill Key Iranian Officials as Netanyahu Says Iran Can No Longer Build Missiles, Enrich Uranium
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference, amid the US-Israel conflict with Iran, in Jerusalem, March 19, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun/Pool
Israel continued its efforts to kill key Iranian officials and destabilize the regime on Friday, one day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised what he described as the military’s unprecedented achievements three weeks into the war.
The Israeli military said on Friday it killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesperson Ali Mohammad Naini in an overnight airstrike against regime targets across the Iranian capital of Tehran.
“Naini disseminated the regime’s terrorist propaganda to its proxies across the Middle East,” the military said, describing him as a central figure in messaging tied to attacks against Israel.
Kasra Aarabi, director of IRGC research at United Against Nuclear Iran, described Naini’s death as “a significant blow to the regime’s psychological warfare and propaganda operations — an increasingly central pillar of the IRGC’s current war strategy.”
Iranian state media had reported his death earlier in the day.
The Israeli military also announced on Friday that, two days ago, it killed a key, senior commander in Iran’s intelligence ministry, Mahdi Rostami Shamastan, in an airstrike in Tehran following a joint operation involving Israel’s Military Intelligence, Mossad, and Shin Bet.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also said on Friday that it killed the Basij militia’s intelligence chief, Esmail Ahmadi, in a strike in central Tehran.
ELIMINATED: Esmail Ahmadi, Head of the Intelligence Division of the Basij Force, as well as several other senior commanders in a strike on the senior leadership of the Basij Force in the heart of Tehran.
Ahmadi played a central role in advancing and executing terror attacks… pic.twitter.com/M9mwVmlvH7
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) March 20, 2026
The Iranian regime uses the Basij paramilitary force, which is affiliated with the IRGC, to violently suppress protests and crush political opposition across the country.
“Ahmadi played a central role in advancing and executing terror attacks carried out by Basij Forces,” the IDF posted on social media. “He was also responsible for enforcing public order and the regime’s values on behalf of the IRGC and leading major suppression operations during the recent internal protests in Iran.”
Ahmadi was killed earlier this week in the strikes that targeted and successfully eliminated other senior Basij militia members, including top commander Gholam Reza Soleimani and his deputy, Seyyed Karishi.
The IDF’s announcements came after Netanyahu on Thursday vowed the campaign against Iran will continue “as long as necessary” until all objectives are met.
Speaking at a press conference, Netanyahu reiterated the war’s three main objectives, emphasizing the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, the destruction of its ballistic missile capabilities, and the creation of conditions for the Iranian people to determine their own future.
“Today, after 20 days [of conflict], I can tell you: Iran does not have the ability to enrich uranium … and it does not have the ability to produce ballistic missiles,” the Israeli leader said. “Not only did we destroy the existing missiles [and nuclear components], but we seriously damaged the industries that make it possible to produce them.”
He also stressed that Israel is operating on all fronts — by air, on land, underground, and across the Caspian Sea — where, this week, Israeli forces launched their first attack on Iranian Navy targets since the outbreak of the war.
“A revolution cannot be made from the air; there are also ground-based options,” Netanyahu said.
“We have eliminated the political and military top command, the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and the Basij,” he continued.
On Tuesday night, the IDF killed Iranian Intelligence Minister Ismail Khatib in Tehran during a precision airstrike carried out with a narrow window of real-time intelligence.
Appointed in 2021, Khatib led Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence, a central pillar of the regime’s repression apparatus, overseeing espionage, covert operations, and intelligence activities targeting both domestic dissent and foreign adversaries, including Israeli and US targets.
He also played a central role during the regime’s brutal crackdown on internal opposition, including the latest nationwide anti-government protests, which security forces violently crushed, with thousands of demonstrators tortured and killed.
Khatib’s assassination was part of an ongoing wave of targeted killings of senior Iranian officials in recent days, further weakening the regime’s leadership and operational networks.
During Thursday’s press conference, Netanyahu praised Israel’s recent military and strategic successes, presenting them as a defining moment for the country’s strength and influence in the region.
“I promised that we would change the Middle East — and we have changed it beyond recognition. The State of Israel is stronger than ever and Iran is weaker than ever,” he said.
“We have turned Israel into a regional power, and some would say … into a global power,” he continued. “The relationship between me and my friend [US President Donald Trump] is unprecedented, and together we are leading the fight of the free world against the forces of evil.”
Earlier this week, the Israeli Air Force also killed Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s National Security Council, in what was the most significant assassination since the killing of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the start of the campaign on Feb. 28. Larijani was widely believed to be running the country following Khamenei’s death.
With the military campaign escalating, Israeli forces have now been authorized to carry out targeted assassinations of senior Iranian officials without requiring approval from higher command.
Netanyahu also said he had instructed intelligence officers to “act so that the Revolutionary Guards’ killers know we will hunt them down in the cities as well.”
“It’s too early to say whether the Iranian people will take advantage of the conditions we are creating to take to the streets,” the Israeli leader said. “I hope so — but it will depend only on them.”
“I see this war ending much faster than people think,” he continued. The Islamist regime’s collapse “will not happen in one day, but we can already see the cracks.”
According to a recent intelligence assessment, the Iranian regime shows no signs of surrender and remains far from collapse, and Israeli officials have been warned that the war could continue for weeks, the Israeli news outlet N12 reported.
Even though there have been demonstrations in Iran in recent days, this latest assessment shows that they have been limited to a few locations with relatively small numbers of participants, and that the regime’s brutal repression continues to instill fear.
However, a senior Israeli source also told the outlet that the regime is in a state of “complete chaos,” with Jerusalem seeing increasing signs of a breakdown in the regime’s systems in Tehran.
“There is no one there at the moment who is taking the orders, and the government vacuum is deepening,” the official said, adding that Israel is “working to create a breaking point” for the regime.
“The goal is for the Iranian public to understand for itself, through the reality on the ground, that this regime has reached a ‘game over.’ We want to create the conditions in which the Iranian people feel they have an opportunity to take their fate into their own hands and take to the streets,” the source reportedly said.
Israel’s campaign is increasingly focused on dismantling Iran’s internal repression systems, aiming to create a leadership vacuum and logistical breakdown that could hinder the regime’s ability to respond if mass protests erupt again.
Israeli forces have carried out targeted strikes on senior Basij and IRGC officers, destroyed infrastructure used to suppress protests, and launched cyber operations to disrupt internal security communications and coordination, crippling the regime’s ability to redeploy its forces effectively.
So far, Israel says it has dropped some 10,000 munitions on targets linked to the IRGC, Basij, and other internal security forces, delivering a devastating blow to the regime’s security apparatus.
Late Tuesday night into Wednesday morning alone, around 300 Basij commanders and field officials were killed in a wave of strikes on key command and operational centers, according to Iran International.
During Thursday’s press conference, Netanyahu expressed pride in the Israeli people for their steadfast stand, praising their resilience and unity in the face of ongoing conflict.
“I know how difficult it is to stay in the security rooms and showers, and I understand the challenges with studies, businesses, and reservist duties. Your patience gives us the strength to keep fighting until we achieve the campaign’s objectives,” he said.
“Continue to stand tall, continue to stand with us, and with God’s help, together, we will stand and together we will win.”