Uncategorized
AIPAC is targeting candidates who want to condition aid to Israel. Who has crossed its red line?
(JTA) — The flood of recent spending by a PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee against a Democratic congressional candidate in New Jersey had many observers scratching their heads: Why would the pro-Israel lobby go after someone who describes himself as pro-Israel, when there was a much more strident critic of Israel in the race?
The PAC’s answer: Tom Malinowski had expressed openness to conditioning U.S. aid to Israel — and that was now AIPAC’s red line.
“We are going to have a focus on stopping candidates who are detractors of Israel or who want to put conditions on aid,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, said in an interview.
The idea that U.S. aid to Israel should be contingent on Israeli behavior was long anathema to most American politicians, advocated only by the far left. But as the war in Gaza dragged on in 2024 and 2025, with Israel continuing its campaign despite the urging of two subsequent U.S. administrations, more lawmakers began to express openness to the idea.
That shift sped up last summer as reports of starvation in Gaza spread, and politicians who’d never previously done so voted to block certain weapons to Israel. Longtime allies in Congress are crossing red lines again and again. The new U.S.-Israel war against Iran is inflaming the discourse once again.
Now, with the November elections coming closer, a hobbled AIPAC is weighing which candidates to back across the country, even as an increasing number of politicians pledge not to accept their endorsement or their affiliated PAC’s money.
Here’s a rundown of who might find themselves in AIPAC’s crosshairs, why, and what they’re saying about the pro-Israel lobby that’s become increasingly toxic among Democratic voters.
Crossing a red line, but open to AIPAC support
Rep. Adam Smith was endorsed by AIPAC in his most recent election cycle, but has since declared his support for conditioning aid to Israel. The Democrat from Washington state wrote last summer that the United States should “stop the sale of some offensive weapons systems to Israel as leverage to pressure Israel” if it did not take a handful of concrete measures, including implementing a Gaza ceasefire, stopping expansion of settlements in the West Bank and taking “serious steps” to reduce violence there.
Smith, a member of Congress since 1997, will face a nonpartisan primary election in August before a November election between the top two candidates. His opponents include Kshama Sawant, a former Seattle City Council member running as an independent on a “working class, antiwar, anti-genocide” campaign. Sawant is in favor of ending all military aid to Israel, and has called its military campaign in Gaza “a new holocaust.”
Smith is walking the tightrope between supporting Israel and criticizing its government and policies — and, by extension, distancing himself from AIPAC. “I don’t know what AIPAC is going to do in my race,” Smith told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a statement sent by his campaign manager. “I have certainly taken votes and positions that are the opposite of what AIPAC wanted. On the other hand, I still support the right of Israel to exist, and understand the threats that Israel continues to face from Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas among others.”
Smith added that Israel has a right to defend itself against those threats “even if I don’t always agree with how Israel chooses to exercise that right.”
While Smith has taken positions counter to AIPAC’s mandate, he said he would still welcome support from its members.
“I do have a number of constituents in my district who are active members of AIPAC,” Smith wrote. “I speak with them regularly and yes, I would welcome their support if they choose to offer it even considering where we disagree.”
Illinois Rep. Jonathan Jackson is also among the vanishingly few Democrats to say publicly that they would still accept contributions from AIPAC. He also co-sponsored the Block the Bombs to Israel Act last summer, which would restrict the sale of certain U.S.-made weapons to Israel.
Defying AIPAC, and taking their chances
The list of politicians with pro-Israel voting records who are veering away from AIPAC’s stance is growing. It includes a number of politicians who haven’t publicly commented on whether they’d accept AIPAC contributions or an endorsement, but could become a target of its super PAC’s spending.
Oregon Rep. Maxine Dexter was endorsed by AIPAC and benefited from more than $2 million in UDP spending last election. Nevertheless, she was one of 21 cosponsors of legislation accusing Israel of committing a genocide that was backed by anti-Zionist groups like Codepink and Jewish Voice for Peace.
Dexter also cosponsored the unsuccessful Block the Bombs Act last September. In fact, a number of AIPAC’s 2024 endorsees signed onto the bill since it was rolled out in May, including California’s Robert Garcia, Oregon’s Suzanne Bonamici and Andrea Salinas, Sylvia Garcia in Texas and Steven Horsford in Nevada.
Congresspeople with pro-Israel records and some past AIPAC involvement also voted yes on the Block the Bombs legislation, including California Rep. Mark Takano, who traveled on an AIPAC-affiliated trip to Israel and the West Bank in 2013; and California Rep. Jared Huffman, who also traveled to Israel in 2013 with AIPAC’s affiliated educational nonprofit. Both have regularly been endorsed by J Street, the liberal pro-Israel lobby, and not AIPAC.
Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost voted yes on Block the Bombs, three years after writing in a position paper that conditioning aid to Israel “would undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself against the very serious threats it faces.”
Other erstwhile pro-Israel politicians with increasingly critical stances on Israel have seemingly accepted that they, like Malinowski, could become the target of AIPAC’s spending.
That includes Sue Altman, who’s running in New Jersey’s nearby 12th district. In 2024, Altman won the Democratic nomination in a different district as a pro-Israel candidate endorsed by Democratic Majority for Israel, a centrist lobbying group that often overlaps in its endorsements with AIPAC. Altman lost to AIPAC-backed Republican Thomas Kean Jr. in the general election.
This year, according to audio leaked by Drop Site News, which has an anti-Israel bent, Altman said “a lot has happened” since 2024 and she is “going to be at least as left as Tom [Malinowski], if not more so” on aid to Israel.
“And so I can only anticipate that AIPAC, if they did it in 11, they’re going to do it here in 12,” she said, adding that there “might be other PACs too.” Last month, she posted on X, “AIPAC and countless SuperPACs are destroying our democracy by polarizing and misleading the public.”
Et tu, Senator?
In the Senate, in a landmark indication of shifting sentiment, a majority of Democrats voted in favor of Bernie Sanders-led resolutions last July that would block the sale of certain weapons to Israel.
The “yes” votes included eight senators who’d never previously voted to cut any aid to Israel: Jack Reed of Rhode Island; Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois; Patty Murray of Washington; Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware; Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who called himself “ardently pro-Israel” last year.
Reed, who is running for reelection, and Klobuchar, who is mounting a bid for governor, face elections this year. One of Klobuchar’s opponents, community organizer Kobey Layne, says she would prevent the state’s pension systems from “investing in companies facilitating Israeli settlements or military supplies to Israel.”
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons voted against Sanders’ resolutions. But Coons, who has previously spoken at AIPAC’s annual policy conference, said at an event last year he would be open to limiting weapons sales to Israel.
“If there is no change in direction from the Israeli administration, for the first time I would seriously consider that,” said Coons, who added that he has never “voted to withhold weapons from Israel, from the IDF.” Coons is up for reelection with a primary in September.
Meanwhile, not all of the “yes” votes have been seen as necessarily indicating a total shift on Israel.
Alsobrooks’ vote to cut aid drew concern from some members of the Jewish community to whom she’d expressed her support for Israel on the campaign trail. But Ron Halber, CEO of the Greater Washington Jewish Community Relations Council, said at the time that he spoke with Alsobrooks and believed she was casting a symbolic vote on a bill that had no real chance of passing.
“I don’t believe that this is a precursor to a fundamental shift on support for Israel,” he said.
But for AIPAC, voting in favor of one of Sanders’ numerous Israel resolutions is grounds for an attack ad.
Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is Jewish, voted to block certain weapons sales last July, as well as in November 2024. AIPAC released an ad attacking Ossoff, plus other lawmakers who supported Sanders’ November 2024 resolutions. DMFI endorsed Ossoff in 2020, but neither it nor AIPAC has backed any candidate in this year’s race.
You can’t fire me; I quit
Cognizant of AIPAC’s worsening public image, a growing number of moderate Democrats say they’ll refuse any campaign donations from the group.
One of those candidates — North Carolina Rep. Valerie Foushee — eked out a primary win last week by less than 1% of the vote. Foushee had been a prominent recipient of AIPAC support in 2022, benefiting from more than $2 million in spending by UDP. Her opponent, Nida Allam, was a Bernie Sanders-backed politician who accuses Israel of committing genocide.
AIPAC’s enemies smell blood in the water. Although Foushee says she will not accept AIPAC contributions during the 2026 campaign, the Working Families Party sent out a fundraising email in February in support of Allam, saying their candidate was “up against AIPAC and crypto billionaires.” (In her 2022 campaign that initially won her the House seat, also against Allam, Foushee was backed by pro-Israel PACs, including AIPAC, and a PAC primarily funded by Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency entrepreneur who has since been convicted of fraud. Foushee beat Allam by more than 9% that year.)
Another North Carolina incumbent, Rep. Deborah Ross, has sworn off AIPAC donations for this year after having previously taken them. The same is true for Kentucky Rep. Morgan McGarvey, who said last year, “We no longer take AIPAC money.”
Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton has gone a step further, saying he would return his approximately $35,000 in donations from AIPAC. Rep. Robin Kelly, who is running for US Senate in Illinois, swore off AIPAC funds and has shifted to a more critical stance toward Israel, including supporting the Block the Bombs Act and accusing Israel of genocide. Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar, who’s received AIPAC contributions, has done the same as Kelly.
Other Democrats, such as New York Rep. Dan Goldman, have sworn off corporate PAC money altogether, including from AIPAC-affiliated PACs as well as DMFI, which recently released its first round of House candidate endorsements.
Goldman has kept his AIPAC ties intact, however, and accepted its endorsement in his campaign against progressive challenger Brad Lander.
It remains to be seen whether UDP will spend in districts like Goldman’s. While a candidate can refuse a contribution, independent ad expenditures may be made without coordination with campaigns. In some instances, those ads are positive and encourage viewers to vote for AIPAC’s preferred candidate.
In the case of New Jersey, AIPAC’s “Anybody but Malinowski” pitch appeared to backfire when a harsh critic of Israel eked out a victory, and only added to the lobby’s growing sense of embattlement.
The post AIPAC is targeting candidates who want to condition aid to Israel. Who has crossed its red line? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Antisemitism in Switzerland Hits Alarming Levels as Online Incidents Surge, Reports Warn
A pro-Hamas demonstration in Zurich, Switzerland, Oct. 28, 2023. Photo: IMAGO/dieBildmanufaktur via Reuters Connect
Antisemitism in Switzerland surged to alarming levels last year, with two reports released on Tuesday warning that hostility and violence targeting Jews are intensifying across the country amid the broader fallout from war involving Israel in the Middle East.
On Tuesday, the Intercommunity Coordination Against Antisemitism and Defamation (CICAD) released its 2025 annual report on hate crimes, documenting a 36 percent rise in antisemitic incidents against the local Jewish community in French-speaking Switzerland compared to 2024.
With a total of 2,438 antisemitic acts last year, CICAD’s latest report marks the highest level of such incidents since the organization began monitoring them in 2003.
Based on the latest data, the association warned of a worsening trend, with incidents classified as “grave and serious” rising 16 percent — from 109 cases in 2024 to 127 in 2025.
This week, the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), in collaboration with the Foundation Against Racism and Antisemitism (GRA), also released their annual report on antisemitic outrages in German-, Italian-, and Romansh-speaking Switzerland for the past year.
Their latest data also shows that antisemitism “remains at a persistently high level” across the country, with tensions further fueled by the ongoing war in the Middle East.
“Since Oct. 7, 2023, the war in the Middle East has been the main long-term trigger for antisemitic incidents in Switzerland,” the organizations wrote in their report, referring to the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel more than two years ago.
“This influence remained significant in 2025. No return to pre-Oct. 7 levels has been observed to date,” they continued.
SIG and GRA’s latest report found the biggest surge of antisemitic activity in online spaces, with 2,185 incidents recorded in 2025 — an increase of nearly 37 percent from 1,596 the previous year.
Most incidents took place on the Telegram messaging app, with online newspaper comments coming in second, and the bulk of the reported content centered on conspiracy theories.
With such figures, the report warned that antisemitism is no longer an isolated occurrence but a structural issue, cautioning against the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric.
Even though the study found that real-world antisemitic incidents fell to 177 in 2025 from 221 in 2024 — a decrease of roughly 20 percent — the number remains about three times higher than levels recorded before the Oct. 7 atrocities.
The GRA and SIG urged local authorities to ensure the sustainable protection of Jewish life in Switzerland, calling for long-term security measures, increased investment in prevention and education, and a stronger commitment to monitoring antisemitic threats.
“Effectively combating antisemitism is not a one-off task, but an ongoing responsibility of the state and society,” the report said.
Uncategorized
DOGE Staffers Used ChatGPT to Cut Holocaust History Grants During Counter-DEI Purges: Lawsuit
Elon Musk holds up a chainsaw onstage during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, US, Feb. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard
The US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) relied on the ChatGPT large language model program when deciding to cut grants for Jewish-related history programs, including one focused on violence against women during the Holocaust, according to a new class-action lawsuit.
DOGE staffer Justin Fox is named as one of the defendants in the suit filed in US federal court on Friday by the Authors Guild, which alleges that he was the one who developed the method of using ChatGPT prompts to determine which grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) — also a defendant — to cut in the name of eliminating any programs related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Fox said in a deposition that he regarded any grant related to a minority group as qualifying as “DEI” and thus up for elimination. When asked about a grant he chose to cancel related to violence against women during the Holocaust, he responded, “It’s a Jewish — specifically focused on Jewish culture and amplifying the marginalized voices of the females in that culture.” Fox added, “It’s inherently related to DEI for that reason.”
The Trump administration has made a point of targeting DEI programs, especially on university campuses, arguing they foster bigotry by replacing merit with identity-based preferences. Many Jewish groups have criticized DEI initiatives for often excluding Jews, ignoring antisemitism, or characterizing Jews as white “oppressors” rather than as a historically oppressed minority group.
The lawsuit alleges that Fox and his fellow DOGE staffer Nathan Cavanaugh “made and executed the termination decision without any legal authority conferred by Congress. There is no jurisdictional barrier to vacating these unlawful terminations, and permanent relief is warranted.”
One of the projects targeted by DOGE was a translation project titled In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers From the Soviet Union, which the lawsuit describes as “a critical, annotated translation into English of Yiddish and Russian works written in the aftermath of the most significant Jewish tragedy of the 20th century.”
ChatGPT put the book on the chopping block, stating that “this anthology explores Jewish writers’ engagement with the Holocaust in the USSR.”
According to the suit, the DOGE cuts “are unconstitutional several times over. The record establishes, without genuine factual dispute, that the terminations violated the First Amendment by targeting grants for their viewpoints and perceived political associations; that they violated the equal protection guarantee by classifying grants based on race, sex, and other constitutionally protected characteristics.”
DOGE also allegedly targeted Catholic efforts to promote Holocaust studies. The suit notes that another grant Fox and Cavanaugh chopped was support for the National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education at Seton Hill University.
In a deposition, NEH’s acting chair Michael McDonald said he did not know DOGE had relied on ChatGPT and rejected including Holocaust-related grants under DEI. He also claimed DOGE ignored his disagreements. DOGE possessed the final say about which projects to cut.
In response to the question “In your view, does this grant relate to DEI?” McDonald answered “no.” When the lawyer followed up with “would you consider this to be wasteful spend?” he replied “I would not, no.”
Since the NEH’s founding in 1965, the agency has provided over $6 billion in grants to fund over 70,000 projects in all 50 states.
The lawsuit details that Fox and Cavanaugh lacked “any relevant background in the humanities, public or private grant administration, peer review, or government service of any kind prior to joining the administration.”
According to the filing, the two DOGE staffers met with McDonald and Assistant Chair for Programs Adam Wolfson on March 12. However, Fox and Cavanaugh “entirely controlled the process of selecting grants to terminate and executing the terminations — their approach was top-down, viewpoint- and race-based, and indifferent to the views of NEH leadership or the ordinary processes of grant administration.”
DOGE’s mastermind, billionaire Elon Musk, has a professional rivalry with Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT.
Musk faced multiple controversies last year involving alleged antisemitism, Nazis, and the Holocaust. Following his decision to make a gesture at a Jan. 20 rally which many interpreted as resembling a “Sieg Heil”-style salute, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially defended the billionaire before criticizing his choice to promote Holocaust humor on his X social media platform.
“We’ve said it hundreds of times before and we will say it again: the Holocaust was a singularly evil event, and it is inappropriate and offensive to make light of it. Elon Musk, the Holocaust is not a joke,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s CEO and National Director, wrote on X in response to Musk.
Musk faced criticism days later when addressing a gathering of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, where he said, “There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that.” Critics decried the comments, arguing they minimized or dismissed the Holocaust.
“The remembrance and acknowledgement of the dark past of the country and its people should be central in shaping the German society,” Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel’s national memorial to the Holocaust, said in response to Musk on X. He warned that not focusing on learning lessons from the past is “an insult to the victims of Nazism and a clear danger to the democratic future of Germany.”
In July, following an upgrade to Musk’s ChatGPT rival Grok, the program began promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories and in one instance labeled itself “MechaHitler.”
Two months later, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) released a report revealing the rise of antisemitism on X.
The report utilized OpenAI’s since-discontinued GPT-4o model and drew on a year-long investigation to find that “679,000 posts sampled violate X’s policies on antisemitism, and posts identified as antisemitic got 193 million views in the 11 months of this report, despite X’s promises to limit their visibility. Also, antisemitic conspiracies appear to perform disproportionately well on X, constituting 59% of posts in the sample but 73% of likes.”
The report noted that X had allowed for the rise of so-called “antisemitic influencers” and that “approximately one third of all likes on antisemitic posts were on posts shared by just 10 antisemitism ‘influencers.’ 9 out of these 10 ‘antisemitism influencers’ have more followers on X than any other platform, and 6 out of the 10 are verified on X. 3 out of the 10 profit from paid subscriptions on X.”
Amid the criticism, Musk has denied accusations of antisemitism and said his priority is to make X a bastion of free speech. He visited Israel in late 2023, weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 invasion of the Jewish state, and Auschwitz in January 2024. Following the latter trip, Musk said he was “frankly naive” about antisemitism and described himself as “Jewish by association.”
The Tesla CEO and X owner vowed to wear around his neck a dog tag reading “Bring Them Home” that was given to him by a parent of one of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza until all the captives were returned home.
Uncategorized
Trump’s Iran dithering puts Israel in an unprecedented position
Israel today finds itself in an unusual strategic position: It’s fighting a war that could last for weeks — or end almost instantly. And someone else will decide which way things go.
Down one path lies a prolonged campaign against Iran, with the possibility of regime change. Israel’s leaders openly hope that the campaign will enable the Iranian people to overthrow their rulers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently put it bluntly: “Our aspiration is to enable the Iranian people to cast off the yoke of tyranny.”
Down the other is a rapid cessation of the conflict, with incomplete results. President Donald Trump has already suggested that the conflict may be nearing completion. In a Monday interview with CBS News, Trump said bluntly: “The war is very complete, pretty much.”
Yet in the very same news cycle, Trump offered a strikingly different message. When asked whether the war was essentially over or just beginning, he replied: “I think you could say both.” He suggested he was considering the possibility of taking control of the Strait of Hormuz, the critical global oil chokepoint, and warned on social media that if Iran interfered with shipping there, the United States would strike it “20 times harder than they have been hit thus far.”
Those contradictory statements capture the extraordinary ambiguity surrounding the conflict. And that ambiguity has left Israel in a profoundly complicated position. Now, it must be prepared simultaneously for two radically different scenarios: a prolonged war whose outcome could reshape the Middle East, or a sudden declaration that the conflict is over.
A successful start, and mixed outlook
So far, Israeli and American forces have struck deep inside Iran, decapitating the regime and crippling major parts of military infrastructure. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks against Israel, most of which have been intercepted by Israel’s air defenses, but some of which have brought tragedy.
In recent days, Tehran has picked a new supreme leader: Mojtaba Khamenei, a hardliner and the son of the longtime despot killed on the first day of the war.
If the conflict continues on this trajectory, the implications could be enormous. Sustained pressure on Iran could destabilize the regime. Even without that best-case scenario outcome, a prolonged campaign could dramatically weaken the Islamic Republic.
But a long war carries real dangers. Iran still possesses missiles capable of reaching Israel, and has been firing them daily. Israel’s multilayered defense system intercepts most of them, but not all. A cluster missile strike on Monday killed two; if the war continues, more deaths are likely to follow. And the longer the war lasts, the greater the statistical likelihood that one missile will slip through and cause a true catastrophe.
Even without a disaster, the cumulative strain on Israeli society is unmistakable. The acquisition of weapons and callup of reserve troops is further disrupting an economy that has been in various states of disruption since Oct. 7, 2023. It is also measured in the unquantifiable damage that the stress is causing pretty much every person in the country.
Many businesses are closed, and public life is minimal. Missile alerts — often in the middle of the night — repeatedly send millions of civilians into shelters (and, for a privileged minority, reinforced “safe rooms” in their home). Many offices are half empty. Parents struggle to work while caring for children who are afraid to leave the house.
With ordinary life on hold, a prolonged war could therefore become a grinding economic and psychological burden, even if Israel continues to win militarily.
Yet Israelis broadly support the war. A poll last week found that 93% of the populace backs the operation.
How will they respond if Trump abruptly pulls the plug?
War by whim
To a degree that is profoundly unusual in the history of democratic countries, the trajectory of the war depends largely on one person.
Trump has shown himself to be prone to making unilateral decisions with enormous consequences for the international order without undergoing any of the standard processes.
He launched sweeping tariff wars that upended decades of bipartisan policy on the benefits of relatively free trade. He revived the idea that the U.S. should acquire Greenland — and for weeks refused to rule out using force against Denmark, a NATO ally, to achieve that end. Earlier this year, American forces kidnapped Venezuela’s president, after which Trump openly stated that the U.S. needs “access” to the country’s oil resources.
Even the rhetoric surrounding the Iran campaign is sui generis. In recounting why American forces had sunk Iranian naval vessels rather than capturing them, he approvingly relayed that he was supposedly told by commanders that it was simply “more fun to sink them.”
If Trump decides he is done, and the Islamic Republic limps on, Israelis will be left with the frustrating sense of having missed a huge opportunity to fundamentally alter an unacceptable situation in which Iran is constantly scheming to cause harm.
Iran has been, essentially, a fly the size of an elephant buzzing in Israel’s ear. Yes, the war will be spun as victory either way — but if it ends tomorrow, it will end without achieving all it could. And the current state of affairs, in which Israel effectively has a green light from a U.S. president as indifferent to convention as Trump, may not return.
A reopened Lebanon front
One complication that could outlast either of these scenarios is Hezbollah. The Lebanon-based militia, a regional proxy for Iran, joined the fighting almost immediately, launching rockets and drones toward northern Israel. That intervention may give Israel a strategic opportunity to address a problem that has festered since post-Oct. 7 fighting ended on the Lebanon front in November, 2024.
When that conflict concluded, the Lebanese government pledged that it would dismantle and disarm Hezbollah, finally restoring the state’s monopoly on force. In practice, little changed. Hezbollah remained entrenched in parts of central Lebanon, albeit no longer along Israel’s border.
Israeli patience with this renewed status quo has steadily eroded. But the devastation of the Gaza war had badly damaged Israel’s international standing, making Jerusalem see a renewed Lebanon campaign as diplomatically difficult.
Now, the regional picture has shifted. Lebanese officials — including the country’s president — have increasingly signaled that Hezbollah’s continued militarization is unsustainable. Beirut has in recent days already taken steps to curb Iranian influence, including by restricting activity by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Senior figures have made clear that Hezbollah’s role as an armed “state within a state” cannot continue indefinitely.
Elements of Lebanon’s government clearly hope Israel might finish a task they cannot accomplish themselves — the decisive debilitation of Hezbollah — though preferably without bringing another devastating war onto Lebanese soil.
What this means: Israel is likely to be at war, in some way or another, for some time to come. Trump may call time on the war with Iran; he has no such power when it comes to Israel’s own border conflicts.
But the biggest challenges, and biggest changes, facing Israel belong with the Iran war, which has the potential to truly redefine the region. Netanyahu may wield some influence over Trump, but the decision rests with the White House.
This is an unprecedented state of affairs in Israel’s history: A perilous war of aggression, conducted without real Israeli control. The cost of this is whiplash, as the country has no choice but to live with both possibilities at once: a long war that could reshape the region — or a sudden declaration that the war has been won. Netanyahu may be able to influence Trump one way or the other — but he won’t make the call.
For Israelis, that is the rub in the hyper-alliance with Trump’s U.S. Next month, as Israel celebrates its 78th Independence Day, that independence will feel a tad fictitious. An extreme dependency lies bare for all to see, and it will outlive Trump. His successor may not be as munificent.
The post Trump’s Iran dithering puts Israel in an unprecedented position appeared first on The Forward.