Uncategorized
After weeks of silence, NY Rep. Ritchie Torres says he opposes Israeli judicial overhaul
(New York Jewish Week) — Rep. Ritchie Torres, the Bronx Democrat known for being an outspoken supporter of Israel, has issued his first statement on the country’s proposed judicial overhaul, writing that he is “pleased to see that the ‘judicial reforms’ have been put on pause.”
The statement, published last week as a letter in the Riverdale Press, a newspaper in his district, followed a meeting with a group of constituents led by an American Israeli. It was titled “Let cooler minds prevail here.”
For weeks, Torres was silent on the overhaul, even as other Democratic pro-Israel stalwarts in Congress made statements and signed letters opposing the legislation, which would sap much of the power and independence of the Israeli Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suspended the legislation in the face of massive protests. It is due to return to the table next month, though what it will look like is unclear.
“No legislature should have the ability to override a supreme court by a mere majority,” Torres wrote in the letter, which came out on April 7, the second day of Passover. “Even as a legislator, I recognize that the raw political power of a legislature should never be left unchecked.”
He added, “I hope the present government will negotiate in good faith a compromise that preserves the independence of the judiciary.”
The letter was published days after Torres met with the group of constituents in his Bronx office on March 31. The meeting was organized by Ron Wegsman, a dual American and Israeli citizen who lives in Riverdale, a neighborhood in Torres’ district with a large Jewish and Israeli population.
“We came to him,” Wegsman said. “We got together and asked to meet with him. It was a very nice meeting. He was interested in what we had to say. We asked him to make a statement and he said that he would be happy to do so.”
Wegsman added that he hoped for a statement from Torres given the close ties many constituents in Riverdale have to Israel.
“What’s happening in Israel directly affects us,” Wegsman said. “It’s not something that’s happening on the other side of the world in some foreign country. Undermining of Israeli democracy would affect our families. We felt that this is something that is actually a concern of [Torres’] as a representative in the U.S. Congress, and that’s why we turned to him.”
Torres’ statement on the overhaul comes after weeks in which he refrained from opining on the legislation, even as other New York City Democrats with long pro-Israel records spoke out.
Roughly a month ago, two letters opposing the overhaul were put out by Democratic members of Congress – one of which urged President Joe Biden “to use all diplomatic tools available to prevent Israel’s current government from further damaging the nation’s democratic institutions.” Torres was not among the 92 Democrats to sign it. Another letter came solely from the chamber’s Jewish Democrats.
Wegsman said that despite his public silence, Torres told the group “that any time someone asked him, he made clear his support for an independent judiciary in Israel.”
The New York Jewish Week had reached out to Torres’ office multiple times in recent months for a comment on the judiciary reform, and did not receive a response. Torres likewise did not respond to a request for comment on his April 6 letter.
According to the campaign finance database Open Secrets, the American Israel Public Affairs Committe, the pro-Israel lobby, is a top contributor to Torres. While other major American Jewish groups have publicly criticized the judicial overhaul, AIPAC has stayed relatively quiet. In response to Netanyahu’s pause on the legislation, it praised Israel’s “showcasing its passionate engagement in the democratic process to determine the policies that will guide their country,” but it did not sign on to a collective statement by multiple groups praising the legislative pause.
In his letter, Torres also stuck to his pro-Israel bona fides praising Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system — and hinted at why he may have declined previous calls to join colleagues in criticizing the judicial reform. Support for Iron Dome “should, and must, remain unconditional,” he wrote.
“The usual detractors have been rushing to exploit the current controversy in Israel as an excuse for conditioning aid,” Torres said. “I reject these cynical attempts emphatically.”
Wegsman said Torres’ sentiments on the judicial reform appeared to be genuine.
“We said to him, ‘We think you need to be more proactive and actually come out with a statement,’” Wegsman said. “He was very welcoming to us. We didn’t have to convince him. He said that it was clear that the override clause was totally unacceptable. We didn’t feel we needed to pressure him. It might be that he just had to hear it from constituents.”
—
The post After weeks of silence, NY Rep. Ritchie Torres says he opposes Israeli judicial overhaul appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.