In America, the left wing of the Democratic party has been growing in influence even as it has become increasingly hostile to the Jewish state—leading to predictions of a fracturing of U.S.-Israel relations. Likewise, Israeli and American media have been publishing various warnings that the hard-right members of the new governing coalition in Jerusalem will push America away. Zalman Shoval argues that these concerns are overblown, citing a recent speech by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the self-styled “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group J Street:

Blinken praised Israel’s democratic elections and congratulated Benjamin Netanyahu on his victory, stressing the importance of relations between the U.S. and Israel regardless of the political hue of its government.

He specifically reiterated the importance of American security-related support for Israel, emphasizing that “no peace is possible or sustainable without a strong, secure Israel,” specifying that “our assistance to Israel is sacrosanct” and that “the United States’ ironclad commitment to Israel’s security assistance has never been stronger than it is today.” He also mentioned the administration’s opposition to BDS and anti-Israel discrimination in international forums such as the United Nations.

There were some raised eyebrows over the U.S. secretary of state delivering his speech to an organization that is not known to be supportive of most Israeli positions, and not only Netanyahu’s. However, [Blinken] probably did so expressly in order to signal to the left of the Democratic party in Congress, which opposes aid to Israel—including cooperation on security-related issues—that the administration would continue its course, a stance which was also underpinned by recent statements of the U.S. ambassador to Jerusalem Thomas Nides.

The eminent American historian Walter Russell Mead, one of the most senior and respected experts on U.S. foreign policy, in his recently published book, The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel and the Fate of the Jewish People, advances the thesis that the U.S.-Israel alliance is not only stable but that American support for Israel over the past 40 years served the American interest and that America needed Israel, and not the other way around.

In practice, Shoval writes, this means that Israel has grown too important to America, and vice-versa, for some sort of rift to be on the immediate horizon.

Yesterday, the beepers used by hundreds of Hizballah operatives were detonated. Noah Rothman puts this ingenious attack in the context of the overall war between Israel and the Iran-backed terrorist group:

[W]hile the disabling of an untold number of Hizballah operatives is remarkable, it’s also ominous. This week, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant told reporters that the hour is nearing when Israeli forces will have to confront Iran’s cat’s-paw in southern Lebanon directly, in order to return the tens of thousands of Israelis who fled their homes along Lebanon’s border under fire and have not yet been able to return. Today’s operation may be a prelude to the next phase of Israel’s defensive war, a dangerous one in which the IDF will face off against an enemy with tens of thousands of fighters and over 150,000 rockets and missiles trained on Israeli cities.

Seth Frantzman, meanwhile, focuses on the specific damage the pager bombings have likely done to Hizballah:

This will put the men in hospital for a period of time. Some of them can go back to serving Hizballah, but they will not have access to one of their hands. These will most likely be their dominant hand, meaning the hand they’d also use to hold the trigger of a rifle or push the button to launch a missile.

Hizballah has already lost around 450 fighters in its eleven-month confrontation with Israel. This is a significant loss for the group. While Hizballah can replace losses, it doesn’t have an endlessly deep [supply of recruits]. This is not only because it has to invest in training and security ahead of recruitment, but also because it draws its recruits from a narrow spectrum of Lebanese society.

The overall challenge for Hizballah is not just replacing wounded and dead fighters. The group will be challenged to . . . roll out some other way to communicate with its men. The use of pagers may seem archaic, but Hizballah apparently chose to use this system because it assumed the network could not be penetrated. . . . It will also now be concerned about the penetration of its operational security. When groups like Hizballah are in chaos, they are more vulnerable to making mistakes.