For Heaven’s Sake: “Israel: Winning the Iran War, Losing the American Jews?”

Podcast: For Heaven’s Sake (Shalom Hartman Institute / Ark Media)
Hosts: Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi
Date: March 12, 2026
Episode Theme: Amidst Israel’s ongoing war with Iran, Donniel and Yossi confront growing political rifts with American Jews, asking if Israel could win its military conflict while losing the solidarity of North American Jewry.

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the profound divide emerging between Israeli and American Jewish perspectives on the Iran war. While Israelis see their current conflict with Iran as an existential struggle and a moral imperative, many American Jews feel alienated by Israel’s choices and politics, particularly its ongoing conflicts and relationships with controversial political figures like President Trump. Donniel and Yossi debate if shared fate is possible—or desirable—given such divergent experiences and existential priorities. Underlying it all: the fear that Israel may “win” militarily while losing moral legitimacy and the support of its most vital diaspora community.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. From Moral to Political Critique of the War

• Last Episode Recap: Previously, the hosts focused on moral criticisms of Israel’s war with Iran—instinctive pacifism, relativization of Iran’s evil, arguments around obligatory self-defense, and skepticism stemming from Trump's motivations (04:47).
• Shift to Political Critique: This episode expands to the political criticisms: what are legitimate Israeli versus American interests, and how do allies navigate conflicting priorities?

“For Israelis, this war is so self-evident, but part of where we're sitting today is a deepened sense—not even morally, politically—that it's not self-evident, not for America and not for many American Jews.”
— Donniel (05:24)

2. How Israelis See the Conflict

• Historical Lens: For Israelis, this war didn’t begin “12 days ago” but in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution, when Iran became Israel’s implacable enemy; thus, the fight is experienced as an existential, decades-long struggle (07:51).
• Obligation, Not Opportunism: Israelis see military action as an obligatory act of self-preservation—“a milchemet mitzvah”—even without a clear end goal.
• Distrust of Diplomacy: Skepticism toward new negotiations with Iran was widespread, with doubts about any meaningful outcome or shift in Iranian intent (11:02).

“We didn't even need an end goal... It’s simply another phase of a war that’s been ongoing for many decades.”
— Yossi (08:49)

3. American Jews’ Differing Perspective

• No Enduring Sense of War: Most American Jews do not process the Iran conflict as “endless” or existential; they are shaped by narratives of failed regime change, reluctance for endless warfare, and distance from direct threat (16:11).
• Dual Loyalties and American Interests: When Israeli leaders challenge U.S. presidents (e.g., Netanyahu’s critique of Obama in 2015 over the Iran nuclear deal), American Jews feel their Americanness questioned.
• Ambivalence toward Israeli Politics: Many are uneasy supporting an Israeli war perceived as “Netanyahu’s” or “Trump’s” war, remembering America’s own misadventures and valuing caution, diplomacy, and liberal order (18:41).

“American Jews are Americans… To demand of Americans not to have a loyalty to their own country, which is not completely subsumed by Israel's needs—I think that's part of this story as well.”
— Donniel (19:24)

4. Betrayal, Existential Fear, and Emotional Symmetry

• Visceral Divergence on Existential Threats: The hosts unpack what counts as existential danger: For Israelis, it’s a Holocaust-denying, nuclear-aspiring Iran; for American Jews, it’s threats to liberal democracy and security at home (20:54–24:49).
• Mutual Feelings of Betrayal:
  • Israelis feel betrayed when American Jews don’t fully support them against existential threats.
  • American Jews feel betrayed by Israeli decisions that undermine their sense of security and values in America (state/religion, settlements, occupation).
• Demand for Adult Conversation: An honest relationship means recognizing divergent priorities and not demanding absolute sameness.

“So viscerally deep feeling of betrayal... I understand why you feel that Trump is a threat to the liberal order in which American Jewry prospered. That is a kind of existential threat to you. I need you to at least understand why I regard this [Iran] as an existential threat.”
— Yossi (23:13)

5. Loneliness, Legitimacy, and the Fear of Losing the Diaspora

• Possible Consequences: The risk that victory over Iran may come at the cost of intra-Jewish trust and legitimacy abroad, especially North America. Losing that relationship may be as grave as facing more missiles (06:54).
• Maturity over Betrayal: The need to move past “betrayal” rhetoric and toward an acknowledgement of both sides’ loyalties and interests, akin to negotiating sibling or spousal relationships (30:46–31:46).

“Part of what we’re going to have to do in a mature relationship is get rid of the word 'betrayal.'”
— Donniel (31:02)

6. The Elusiveness of an Endgame

• No Clear Exit: Both hosts admit the war’s end is not in clear sight—especially for Yossi, for whom only true “regime change” qualifies as victory (33:11).
• Realism and Apprehension: Donniel points out that the continuation of hostilities may only further strain relations with the Diaspora; the longer the war, the greater American Jewish alienation could become.
• Limits of Military Means: They discuss ideas like “degrading capabilities” and the futility of seeking total regime change solely through military force (40:22–42:26).

“When does it end? ... It ends when Trump tells us it's over... And it's not over.”
— Donniel & Yossi (33:48–33:55)

7. Lived Experience: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times

• Vivid Anecdotes: Both share moments from daily life under missile threat, highlighting the surreal and persistent anxiety Israelis experience—walking in Jerusalem’s forests, hearing alarms, sheltering in hospitals (46:16–48:16).
• Difference in Perspective: Even as Israelis normalize perpetual conflict, they recognize that the world, including the Diaspora, does not—and cannot—live endlessly in such a state (48:26–49:38).

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• On Israeli perspective:
  “For Israelis, this war began in 1979. It didn’t begin 12 days ago.” — Yossi (07:51)

• On dual loyalties:
  “To demand of Americans ... not to have a loyalty to their own country ... I think that's part of this story as well.” — Donniel (19:24)

• On betrayal:
  “I can't trust you as an ally on this. Then what's the relationship worth anymore? ... So viscerally deep feeling of betrayal.” — Yossi (21:53)

• On emotional symmetry:
  “We have betrayed their existential fears. And that's the symmetry I'm drawing.” — Yossi (27:15)

• On the absence of an endgame:
  “I have very modest expectations for this war. ... For me, the end game is regime change. Nothing less.” — Yossi (33:11)

• On legitimacy and loss:
  “At some point ... every day this war continues, we get three more missile launchers and we lose 5% more of North American Jews and North Americans in general.” — Donniel (40:22)

Important Timestamps

• Israeli Perspective on the War’s Origin — 07:51
• Why Political Criticism Matters Now — 05:04
• American Jewish Reactions & Dual Loyalties — 18:41 / 20:31
• Debate on Betrayal and Maturity in Relationship — 23:13-31:02
• No Clear Endgame / Regime Change Debate — 33:11 / 40:22-42:26
• Lived Israeli Experiences of War — 46:16-48:16
• Summary Reflections: Endless vs. Aimless War — 49:00

Episode Conclusion

The hosts close on the uncertainty and isolation unique to Israel’s predicament: an endless war that, to most Israelis, is far from aimless—yet whose endlessness risks fracturing ties with American Jews. They call for mature, honest dialogue, one that acknowledges different fears, allegiances, and realities, while hoping for solidarity that does not erase difference.

“Hopefully our endless war is not aimless, but that’s already a prayer, and maybe not all of that is in our hands.”
— Donniel (49:22)

This summary omits podcast introductions, advertisements, and institutional announcements, focusing solely on the substantive, content-rich discussion.