"Only a diplomatic agreement may provide a long-term resolution, and there is already one in place. Like all compromise agreements, the JCPOA has significant flaws, but has so far proven effective. Instead of pursuing new options, which are no more than detours on the path back to a future diplomatic deal, we should focus on ensuring strict adherence to the existing one, while redressing its flaws."

"The fate of the Jewish national movement is inextricably linked to that of the Palestinian national movement, and there is no way to get around this. Indeed, the ostensible 'victory' will leave us with a binational state and endanger the future of the entire Zionist enterprise. It is rare that history allows us to see a preview of coming events, but a binational reality has long gone from a potential future nightmare, to a bitter present. A present which is played out daily on our TV screens, with the terrorism which has become a self-evident part of our lives, the defense establishment's repeated fears of renewed waves of violence, this time during the upcoming holidays, the demographic trends underway, and the brutalization of public discourse."

The volatile situations on the Korean Peninsula and in Israel have much in common, despite the geographic distance. Israel and South Korea are vibrant and prosperous democracies, the only democracies in the world that live under what they perceive to be existential threats. South Korea is afraid of the North's existing nuclear capabilities; Israel fears that Iran will go nuclear. Both countries face adversaries with radical regimes, whose degree of rationality is unclear and which pose severe threats to their home fronts. The conflict in Korea may draw in China; a conflict with Hezbollah would draw in the Iranian militias in Syria and Iran itself, and complicate Israel's relations with Russia.

The importance of the United States to Israel's national security cannot be overstated. Washington is usually the first, and often the sole, port of call for strategic consultation – almost always the foremost one, and inevitably the primary means of addressing the challenges Israel faces. America is the be-all and end-all of most policy deliberations in Israeli national-security decision-making forums. Some four decades into this 'special relationship', the price of a truly remarkable partnership has been a significant loss of Israeli independence. Indeed, Israel's dependence on the US has become so deep that it is questionable whether the country could even survive today without it.

This article argues that cyberthreats are not fundamentally different from other asymmetric threats, and it provides a conceptual model for developing a response by drawing on classic principles of military strategy, the "four Ds"— Detection, Deterrence, Defense, and Defeat—as well as resilience (the little "r"). The authors offer a model for how countries can create policies addressing each of these principles that will enhance the security of national cyber systems.

"If a post-American era evolves, we will have no choice but to find ways to survive. It will be a far less secure, more isolated and poorer existence. Pray that prophecies of the end of the American era, much like the news of Mark Twain's death, are highly premature." 

"From the vantage point of contemporary readers, it may be surprising to learn that the US–Israeli relationship was actually quite limited and even cool until the late 1960s. It then evolved into a more classic patron-client relationship in the 1970s, and only in the 1980s started to become the institutionalised, strategic relationship that we know today."

Israel must assess whether its long-standing decision to refrain from ratifying the CWC, which it signed, continues to serve its interests, or merely provides a PR advantage to its adversaries. At a time when the use of chemical weapons has become more common in the region, a change in policy may be appropriate.

"Critics of the government's policy, in Israel and among the Jewish community in the United States, are jealous of AIPAC's success, fail to understand that it is a vital strategic asset, and are trying to transfer the bitter battle between the left and the right in Israel to the Washingtonian arena. Their intentions may be good, but there is only one place to wage the vital struggle over Israel's future: in Israel."

Paradoxically, Trump may prove to be the President who is willing to exert unprecedented pressure on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.