Uncategorized
How a once-cautious Benjamin Netanyahu came to lead the most radical coalition in Israel’s history
(JTA) — Twenty-seven years have passed since Benjamin Netanyahu was first elected as Israel’s prime minister. Since 1996, he has headed six governments over a period of more than 15 years, more than any other prime minister. Unfortunately, his current coalition is one of the most radical-populist governments in Israel’s history. This government seeks to rapidly undermine Israel’s democracy by granting unlimited political power to the executive branch of government at the expense of the judiciary.
How can Netanyahu — a U.S.-educated and respected world leader who was cautious in his approach to building previous coalitions, and was once respectful of Israeli democratic institutions — support such a dangerous plan? Was the “writing on the wall” earlier on in his lengthy tenure?
A glimpse into Netanyahu’s years in office reveals that, indeed, signs of his being a populist leader — specializing in attacks against the so-called elite — could be detected long ago. As Likud leader in 1993, Netanyahu was blamed for ignoring the incitement by extremists that preceded the assignation of Yitzhak Rabin (a charge he vociferously denies). As early as 1997, during his first term as prime minister, he said that “the left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” Two years later, during an election campaign, he mocked the “leftist” press by saying “they are scared” (by the possibility of a right-wing victory). On Election Day in 2015, he posted a video urging Likud supporters to go out and vote by warning, “the Arabs are heading in droves to the polls.” That message led to accusations that the candidate was using racial dog whistles to motivate his followers.
However, Netanyahu’s populist discourse and his natural divide-and-conquer leadership style were balanced out, at least until 2015, by several factors. First, Netanyahu always sought to include centrist and even left-of-center parties in his coalition governments. Even when he could build a “pure” right-wing coalition (following the 2009 elections, for example), he preferred to invite partners from the opposing political side. His intention, he once said, was to provide a “wide and stable government that unites the people.”
Second, despite his hawkish image and his hardline discourse on security issues, Netanyahu wa considered to be an exceedingly cautious leader in that arena. Risk-averse, he tended to avoid involving Israel in major wars and was wary of acting in ways that would spark violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
Third, over his many years in office, he had demonstrated respect for the rules of the game — and towards Israel’s Supreme Court. He even blocked earlier initiatives that sought to undermine the power of the judicial branch. “I believe that in a democracy, a strong and independent Court is what enables the existence of all other democratic institutions,” he said in 2012. “Every time a law comes across my desk that threatens to impair the independence of the courts, we will take it down.”
The 2015 elections should probably be regarded as the turning point, after which these balancing factors quickly gave way to unabashed populism. The unexpected resounding victory in that year’s elections brought out the hubris in Netanyahu. He formed a right-wing coalition government (only slightly moderated by Moshe Kahlon’s centrist Kulanu party), personally held four ministerial positions in addition to the prime ministership, and gave his blessing to the hugely controversial Nation-State Bill. This legislation, which anchored in law Israel’s status as the “national home of the Jewish people,” strengthened the Jewish component of Israel’s dual “Jewish and democratic” identity without in turn strengthening its democratic component — explicitly and implicitly downgrading minority rights.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s longtime obsession with controlling press coverage reached a new level. His insistence on personally heading the Ministry of Communications and his excessive involvement in media — for example, installing a close ally as director-general of the ministry, and targeting and strong-arming ostensibly “unfriendly” newspapers and broadcasters — served as the background for two of the three indictments for which he is currently on trial.
The investigations on corruption charges, and his subsequent trial, further pushed Netanyahu toward populist extremes. Following three rounds of elections between 2019 and 2020, which threw Israel into an unprecedented political crisis, Netanyahu was forced to form a unity government with former Gen. Benny Gantz’s centrist Blue & White party. Coincidentally, just a few hours after the government’s first meeting, Netanyahu’s trial began in the Jerusalem District Court. The prime minister arrived at the court on May 24, 2020, accompanied by several Likud Knesset members, and launched a fierce attack:
What is on trial today is an effort to frustrate the will of the people — the attempt to bring down me and the right-wing camp. For more than a decade, the left has failed to do this at the ballot box. So over the last few years, they have discovered a new method: some segments in the police and the prosecution have joined forces with the leftist media… to manufacture baseless and absurd charges against me.
These statements made it clear that Netanyahu had crossed the Rubicon, setting the tone for his behavior ever since. He dispensed with the partnership with Gantz, sacrificing Israel’s economic and political interests along with it. In the build-up to the next elections, he legitimized extremist, racist politicians such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who are today members of his governing coalition. After failing to form a government in 2021 (having been ousted from power after more than 12 consecutive years), he violated fundamental parliamentary conventions and norms. For instance, he instructed his right-wing allies to boycott Knesset committees and refused to attend the customary “update meeting” the parliamentary opposition leader holds with the prime minister. His previous respect for the rules of the game and democratic institutions was a thing of the past.
In that sense, it is no wonder that the current government he has formed, following his victory in the 2022 elections, is relentlessly pushing the overhaul of the judicial system, with little regard to the dangers the legislation poses to Israel’s democracy. This is due to a combination of Netanyahu’s own self-interest regarding his trial and the interests and worldviews of his political partners — politicians who hold extreme views (Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) as well as those who have previous corruption charges hanging over their heads (Aryeh Deri, leader of the haredi Orthodox Shas party).
The “old Bibi” would have never coalesced with such radical forces and would have never so bluntly disregarded democratic norms. But hubris, an instinct for self-preservation and his high self-regard as the “indispensable man” of Israeli politics created a new Bibi – and a crisis unlike anything Israel has ever seen.
Ironically, Netanyahu finds himself in an unexpected position — as the moderating force in the most radical coalition in Israel’s history. He could tap the instincts that he once had and be the voice of reason, the one who plugs the dike with his finger. He has the chance to lead Israel to a major constitutional moment. Will he rise to this historical challenge?
—
The post How a once-cautious Benjamin Netanyahu came to lead the most radical coalition in Israel’s history appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
US soldier charged for threatening to ‘kill every single Jew’ inside of a synagogue
(JTA) — A soldier stationed at Fort Polk in Louisiana was arrested last week after he told users on the popular messaging platform Discord that he planned to conduct a mass shooting at a synagogue.
Jakob Marcoulier, 22, was arrested last Thursday and charged with transmitting a threat in interstate commerce after the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center received a tip in February that he had made threats toward synagogues, according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the western district of Louisiana.
According to court documents, the FBI obtained audio from Discord in which Marcoulier allegedly said, “After this deployment if the Jews still have reign over our government, I am going to walk into a synagogue with my AK, with a 75-round drum mag, and all of my extra mags, with my level four plates, and my haka helmet that’s three plus, and I am going to kill every single Jew I know inside of that synagogue. And that’s my goal in life.”
During the communications, Marcoulier told the other users, “You guys will never do anything about but I will. I just have to finish this, I have to go back overseas and do what I have to do. And then you’ll see me in the news. I promise you.”
He also allegedly said that he would “kill these motherf—kers in order to make sure the white youth is f—king secured.”
It was not immediately clear when Marcoulier made the comments, but the United States and Israel jointly attacked Iran on Feb. 28 following a buildup of U.S. troops in the Middle East.
The Iran war has put Jewish institutions across the country and the around the world on high alert, with attacks on synagogues including arsons in Europe and a synagogue ramming in suburban Detroit last month.
“Threats against synagogues and Jewish Americans are threats to the religious freedom promised to every single one of us, and this Office and our law enforcement partners are committed to protecting those freedoms,” United States Attorney Zachary A. Keller said in a statement.
The post US soldier charged for threatening to ‘kill every single Jew’ inside of a synagogue appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
J.D. Salinger asked publishers to remove references to his Jewish heritage, newly surfaced letters reveal
(JTA) — Acclaimed author J.D. Salinger asked his publisher to remove references to his Jewish heritage in the book jacket of “The Catcher in the Rye,” newly surfaced letters from 1951 reveal.
The request came in a letter from Salinger, a notoriously private man, and his editor, John Woodburn at publisher Little, Brown and Co. The correspondence, which took place in early 1951, predates the first publication of “The Catcher in the Rye,” Salinger’s hit coming-of-age novel.
“I don’t know that I’d like to have that Jewish-Irish business slapped on the jacket,” Salinger wrote. “Surely if it’s catchy, that is.”
The letter has come to light because Peter Harrington Rare Books, a bookseller based in London, has listed it as part of a package for sale in the New York International Antiquarian Book Fair, which begins on Thursday.
“The Catcher in the Rye,” a contemporary classic following the life of angsty boarding school student Holden Caulfield, is one of the best-selling books of all time.
Caulfield’s character is of Irish heritage, like Salinger’s mother. But Salinger was the son of Sol, a cheese salesman (whose wares might have been kosher) and the grandson of a rabbi on his father’s side. His mother, Marie Jillich, went by Miriam to appease her in-laws who disapproved of the mixed marriage. He learned his mother’s real name only around the time of his bar mitzvah.
To Woodburn, Salinger wrote that he worried about being pigeonholed as a Jewish-Irish writer if the book broadcast that information.
“My Jewish-Irishness isn’t quite so bizarre, as, say, [James] Thurber’s eyesight,” Salinger wrote, referring to the American author and cartoonist, who was legally blind by that time. “But nonetheless, second-rate reviewers would probably find the information just provocative enough to use and misuse over and over again, and I’d end up being expected to wear a Star of David and a Shamrock on the back of my sweatshirt. So, please, let’s be careful.”
Salinger’s other famous works include the 1948 short story “A Perfect Day for a Bananafish,” which follows the Irish Catholic-Jewish Glass family, who also make appearances in “Franny and Zooey.”
The letters, previously unpublished, were acquired from a private collector and will be on view at the New York International Antiquarian Book Fair at the Park Avenue Armory from Thursday to May 3.
The bookseller is also currently offering a first edition of the script of West Side Story, inscribed by all four writers of the play, book, and music: Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Robbins, Arthur Laurents, and Stephen Sondheim. Peter Harrington has also sold a rare, first printed edition of “De Bello Judaico” by Josephus Flavius, the first-century Roman-Jewish historian.
The triad of letters is currently offered at a set price of $47,500 and includes two typed letters by Salinger, with his signature, and a carbon copy of Woodburn’s reply. It also includes a reference to one of Salinger’s “lost stories,” a prequel to “Catcher in the Rye” that was not to be published until 50 years after his death.
Salinger died in 2010 at the age of 91. The “lost story,” “The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls,” was set to be published in 2060, but in 2013, it was pirated and leaked online.
The post J.D. Salinger asked publishers to remove references to his Jewish heritage, newly surfaced letters reveal appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
New York Teacher Seeking to Unseat Ritchie Torres Calls for Socialism, Removal of All Pro-Israel Politicians
Andre Easton speaks to supporters in New York City. Photo: Screenshot
The race to unseat incumbent US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) is drawing attention not only for its electoral implications but also for the broader ideological project outlined by some of his opponents.
Andre Easton, a far-left, anti-Israel high school teacher and member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is running as an independent in New York’s 15th Congressional District on a platform that goes beyond defeating the incumbent. In new remarks, Easton suggested that unseating Torres would not, on its own, achieve the political transformation he seeks.
“We understand that this has to be built in the election system, in the election cycle, and outside of the election cycle,” Easton said, describing a strategy that blends electoral participation with grassroots organizing aimed at shifting political and economic power toward the working class. Easton then asserted that the implementation of socialism in the US was necessary to empower the economic downtrodden.
Easton made the comments on Monday night during an event hosted at The People’s Forum in New York City. The event, titled “Palestine: A Test of Democracy,” featured a panel of individuals all donning keffiyehs — a traditional Arab headdress that has been repurposed following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel to signify support for the anti-Israel political cause.
Easton also argued that removing elected officials who support Israel would only address “a symptom,” framing his campaign as part of a broader effort to build a socialist system in the United States. He stated that having a few politicians removed for their “complicity in funding and supporting a genocide is a step in the right direction,” appearing to lend support to the false claim that Israel pursued genocide against the Palestinians during its campaign against the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza.
Torres, one of the most outspoken pro-Israel Democrats in Congress, has consistently backed the US-Israel alliance and condemned rising antisemitism. His positions have made him a prominent voice within the party at a time of growing internal divisions over Middle East policy. Leftists have taken aim at Torres, accusing him of supporting a so-called “genocide” in Gaza.
During his remarks this week, Easton claimed that “349 members” of Congress have received “direct funding from Israel,” a characterization that misrepresents how US campaign finance works. Organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are US-based and funded by American donors, though they advocate for strong US-Israel ties and support candidates aligned with that position.
Supporters of Torres argue that such rhetoric suggesting foreign funding risks fueling harmful narratives, particularly amid heightened concerns about antisemitism. They contend that backing for Israel among US lawmakers reflects policy alignment rather than external control.
Easton, for his part, framed his campaign as an effort to mobilize supporters beyond traditional electoral participation. He encouraged individuals to become “active participants” and “active protagonists” in shaping political outcomes, emphasizing sustained engagement outside of election cycles.
Political analysts have noted that campaigns like Easton’s bid often aim to influence the broader ideological landscape even when victory is unlikely. By promoting more expansive policy goals and organizing committed supporters, such efforts can seek to shift the boundaries of mainstream political debate, sometimes referred to as the Overton window.
For Torres and his allies, the race underscores a wider debate within the Democratic Party over foreign policy, economic systems, and the role of activism in electoral politics. While the outcome of the primary remains uncertain, the contest highlights competing visions not just for a congressional seat but for the direction of the party itself.
Another candidate seeking to defeat Torres is Michael Blake, a progressive former New York state assemblyman who is running an insurgent anti-Israel, left-wing campaign.
Efforts to unseat Torres are considered a longshot. Though little recent polling of the race has been publicly released, existing polls show Torres with widespread approval across his district. The 15th district, which contains the heavily Jewish Riverdale suburbs, is expected to reelect Torres, although the Democratic primary is still to be held in June, followed by the general election in November.