Uncategorized
Ahead of conference, Jewish federations defend invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu — but sympathize with protesters
(JTA) — The umbrella group for Jewish federations defended its decision to invite Benjamin Netanyahu to its conference in Tel Aviv next week, while praising the protesters who want the Israeli prime minister to be snubbed.
The conference, called the General Assembly and beginning on Sunday night, has historically been the signature gathering of the American Jewish establishment. Last week, a group of expatriate Israelis who oppose Netanyahu’s proposed judicial overhaul called on the Jewish Federations of North America to withdraw his invitation to address the conference.
The protest group, UneXeptable, organizes demonstrations against the overhaul, which would sap the country’s Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. The protest group is also calling on the federations to uninvite lawmaker Simcha Rothman, one of the architects of the judicial legislation, which has been suspended until early May in the face of massive street protests.
But the federations stood by their decision. In addition to Netanyahu and Rothman, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid will address the conference. So will Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who has criticized the judicial overhaul push and is now leading negotiations to formulate a compromise on the legislation.
“Some have even called for the Jewish Federations of North America to withdraw their invitation. We respectfully disagree,” read the statement by Julie Platt, the federations’ chairwoman, and Eric Fingerhut, the CEO. “First and foremost, the opportunity to hear from Israel’s duly elected president and prime minister is a symbol of Israel’s achievement as a modern democratic state. We look forward to welcoming these officials on this historic occasion.”
The fact that the federations justified the invitations at all is itself remarkable. Israel’s leaders have historically been guests of honor at federation conferences, and reserving speaking slots for them has been a matter of course. A protest against Netanyahu at the federations’ General Assembly in 2010, by the pro-Palestinian group Jewish Voice for Peace, was shut down and ridiculed by federation leadership.
And the Tel Aviv gathering, coming just six months after the federations’ last General Assembly and expected to draw 3,000 attendees, is specifically intended to celebrate Israel’s milestone 75th birthday.
In its appeal to disinvite Netanyahu and Rothman, sent last week, UnXeptable noted the breadth of the proposed changes to the judiciary and warned that both officials would use the conference stage as a platform to defend the overhaul. Street protests have continued despite the negotiations.
“PM Netanyahu and MK Rothman should not be allowed to use the 2023 JFNA General Assembly as a platform to incite against those who defend democracy or in order to parade false unity and pseudo-shared values,” the UnXeptable letter said. “Our communal stage should not be used to legitimize or further advance the attacks on Israel’s democracy or on those fighting to defend it.”
Even as the federations’ statement defended the invitations — an earlier published draft vowed that “any individuals holding these positions” would be welcome at the event — it also praised the protesters’ aims and methods. The statement opened by acknowledging that the protesters “care deeply and sincerely about the future of Israel.”
The statement noted that the federations came out against a central component of the judicial overhaul, and that the group’s leadership traveled to Israel to lobby the government on the issue. And it assured protesters that, if they do show up to the event, the federations “will do everything we can to ensure that our attendees and security professionals respect these protesters, and expect that any protestors will respect our participants by demonstrating in a way that does not disrupt their ability to attend the event, participate, or listen to the speakers.”
“We have also been awed by the powerful statement Israel’s citizens have made exercising their democratic right to protest,” the statement said. “Given the immense importance of this debate and its implications for Jews all around the world, we understand that some will choose to exercise that right at the General Assembly.”
UnXeptable founder Offir Gutelzon, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, said he sympathized with the federations’ sense that it must welcome Israeli leaders, whatever their views, but he pleaded with the organization not to let Netanyahu speak unchallenged.
“I’m happy that the JFNA was responsive to our letter,” he said in an interview. “We are still asking the JFNA to consider, even if not disinviting — consider about making it a panel, making it with questions and answers, making sure that this is not just a one-way announcement by the prime minister.”
—
The post Ahead of conference, Jewish federations defend invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu — but sympathize with protesters 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.