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
Robert Kraft’s new Super Bowl ad about antisemitism already feels dated
Not content with his team’s victories on the football field, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has in recent years taken it upon himself to lease the most expensive airtime on American television.
The Pats may be out of the Super Bowl, but ads from Kraft’s Blue Square Alliance Against Antisemitism (formerly the Foundation to Combat Anti-Semitism) are very much in, and have been for a few years. The campaign has given us two previous Super Bowl spots: one in which Martin Luther King Jr.’s speechwriter Clarence B. Jones urged us to speak out against silence and, last year, as a nice counterpoint, one where Snoop Dogg and Tom Brady yelled at each other. These commercials, unlike ones that the Alliance aired outside of major sporting events, each had their weaknesses in messaging.
The first ad, which primarily spotlighted other hatreds, was perhaps too generic for an organization committed to fighting antisemitism, and its slogan, “stand up to Jewish hate,” left some viewers mystified. The second conveyed essentially nothing, reading as a sort of wan, FCC-vetted homage to a sequence in Do the Right Thing.
Enter the newest campaign, set in an American high school. A boy walks down the hall as classmates — one in a “how do you do fellow kids”-style backwards cap — knock into him. Others make indistinct comments as he walks by. As the boy pulls up to his locker to put in his knapsack, we see what his peers were snickering at: a Post-It note tagged to his bag that reads “DIRTY JEW.”
Did a wormhole to the 1950s just open up? Was this an outtake from The Fabelmans or that old Frank Sinatra PSA? This just could be not feel more disconnected from how antisemitism now operates in school hallways.
High school students, as countless watchdog groups can tell you, are far more creative and subtle now with their Jew hatred. And those more insidious strains are the ones we should be alerting people to.
Kids these days prefer edgelord remarks about cooking 6 million pizzas in five years and slurs like “Zio” and baby killer or they tell you to go to the gas chambers. They recycle memes about globalist control and an Aryan society called “Agartha.” At their most dunderheaded, they don’t scrawl “Dirty Jew” — though they sometimes say it — they go to that old standby: the swastika. In 2024, the ADL reported 860 incidents in K-12 schools, and though their metrics for antisemitism are at times controversial, 52% of instances involved a swastika. (If you’re a hater of a certain income, like Ye, you can even have swastikas advertised covertly during the Big Game; Kraft’s crew could have stuck it to him by including one on the sticky.)
I get why they did it like this — you want to make your point in 30 seconds. But if you follow instances of antisemitism in schools or online — and it’s kind of an occupational hazard for me — you know this is not how today’s animus is typically expressed. And that can have a kind of unfortunate ripple effect.
If this was meant for the kids, they will laugh at how alien and out-of-touch it seems. And with that, there’s a risk that antisemitism will seem like a manufactured problem.
What happens next in the commercial holds true to what we teach kids about being an “upstander,” rather than a bystander. Another student covers the offensive sticky note with a blue one, and then, like the legendary King of Denmark with his yellow star — or Van Jones with Kraft’s trademark blue square lapel pin — sticks a blue sticky on his own chest.
However noble the intentions of the ad may be, in a world of Groypers, this is bait. I can already anticipate the memes. I also find it doubtful that blue square pins, available on the campaign’s website and the icon behind Kraft’s organization’s rebrand, will become 2026’s hot Gen Z accessory, the new Labubus.
That the message misses the mark is disappointing because Kraft’s organization previously had some quite powerful non-Super Bowl ads, some of which have won awards. The strongest showed a boy and his father in a truck, with the dad confronting his son about a social media post where he said “Hitler was right.”
The dialogue is on-the-nose, but gets at a real phenomenon: Teens, even if raised right, can still be radicalized by the internet and emboldened by its anonymity. (As in the case of the alleged Jackson synagogue arsonist, we know that radicalization can happen fast.) “You got something you want to say, get out of the truck and say it to their faces” the dad tells his son, and the camera pulls focus to what’s outside their windshield: Jews leaving synagogue. And then, text, a solid statistic of a real phrase circulating on the internet: “‘Hitler was right’ was posted over 70,000 times last year.”
That ad still hits me in the gut, and serves as a bridge for two audiences: parents and their kids.
The Post-It ad doesn’t do that.
It tells reasonable older people what they already know: Overt, unambiguous antisemitism is bad. It tells kids that adults don’t get what they’re dealing with. It tells people on the cusp, or already fully immersed, in conspiracies of Jewish control that Jews have unlimited resources, and a limited understanding of the facts on the ground.
If Kraft is committed to throwing money at a very real problem, he should at least get his money’s worth.
The post Robert Kraft’s new Super Bowl ad about antisemitism already feels dated appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
South Carolina Republican Senate Candidate Floats Antisemitic Conspiracies in Effort to Boost Long-Shot Campaign
Paul Dans, candidate for US Senate, speaks during the Anderson County Republican Party Charlie Kirk Tribute at the Civic Center of Anderson, South Carolina, Sept. 15, 2025. Photo: USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
Paul Dans, a lawyer and Republican candidate for US Senate in South Carolina, has boosted antisemitic conspiracy theories online, suggesting that high-ranking Jews have imported drugs and implemented an extermination campaign against white people.
“The ELITES call us ‘goy cattle’ and sent OxyContin into our communities for a reason. EPSTEIN files confirm WHITE GENOCIDE and WHITE HATE is not a conspiracy but an operation in progress,” Dans posted on X on Monday.
Goy is a term for a gentile, a non-Jew.
Dans, who describes himself as an “America 1st warrior” and a counterweight to entrenched Washington, DC establishment interests, has portrayed himself as an ardent opponent of longstanding US foreign policy. He has been critical of what he calls America’s entanglement in “endless wars” in the Middle East and Ukraine.
”I’m America first and not Israel first, not Ukraine first. We always have to ask what is in the foreign policy interest of the United States citizen. How are we helping the people back home thrive and be safe?” Dans said during an October 2025 interview with South Carolina local news.
Notably, Dans is also a former director of the embattled Heritage Foundation and was the chief architect of Project 2025 — a sprawling political playbook which outlines how to overhaul the federal government to support a conservative policy agenda. The Heritage Foundation has found itself embroiled in mounting controversy in recent months after its president, Kevin Roberts, issued a passionate defense of antisemitic podcaster Tucker Carlson. Carlson had elicited backlash after hosting a chummy interview with the Holocaust-denying, anti-Jewish streamer Nick Fuentes.
Dans also appeared on “The Tucker Carlson Show” in November 2025, in which he and the podcaster criticized US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for his steadfast support for Israel, insinuating that Graham focuses more on uplifting Israel than the US.
Dans’ status as the mastermind of Project 2025 indicates that he likely has significant influence and reach within the Republican establishment.
Critics argue that Dans’ comments are part of a broader trend of long-shot political hopefuls using antisemitism to draw attention to their campaigns and galvanize fringe elements of the far right. James Fishback, a hedge fund manager who recently launched a campaign for the Republican nomination in the Florida gubernatorial race, has drawn significant attention by repeatedly invoked anti-Israel conspiracy theories.
Dans still remains a heavy underdog in the primary competition. However, some polls show that he’s gaining ground. An internal poll from the Dans campaign last fall showed the insurgent swelling from 9.2 percent in June 2025 to 22.1 percent in September among voters. Graham still holds a commanding lead with 46.3 percent of the vote, a slight decline from 49.5 percent during the same timeframe.
Uncategorized
Trump Demands $1 Billion From Harvard University Amid Dispute Over Campus Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before boarding Marine One to depart for Quantico, Virginia, from the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
US President Donald Trump has demanded that Harvard University pay $1 billion to settle the federal government’s claim that it failed to address campus antisemitism and governed the institution in accordance with far-left viewpoints.
“This should be a Criminal, not Civil event, and Harvard will have to live with the consequence of their wrongdoings. In any event, this case will continue until justice is served. Dr. Alan Garber, the President of Harvard, has done a terrible Job of rectifying a very bad situation for his institution, and, more importantly, America, itself,” Trump wrote in a post on the Truth Social media platform. “We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University.”
The Trump administration canceled some $2.26 billion in federal contracts and grants to Harvard in April, citing its alleged violation of the civil rights of Jewish students during a wave of antisemitic incidents to which, according to Jewish advocacy groups, the university failed to respond with sufficient disciplinary actions and other measures. Trump followed the move by proposing to reform Harvard, as well as all of higher education, based on ideas that date back to the advent of the Reagan Revolution — including the abolition of admissions policies which privilege minority and women applicants and the promotion viewpoint diversity, which aims to amplify conservative voices while attenuating the influence of far-left faculty and administrators.
Trump’s social media post on Tuesday contradicted an earlier report by the New York Times which said that the US president no longer expects Harvard to pay cash to terminate the dispute with his administration and restore the totality of its federal funding. Most of that money, according to The Harvard Crimson, was restored to the university by a federal court ruling in July, but Harvard, which is running its biggest budget deficit since the Covid-19 pandemic, is working to figure out a way to secure the release of the remainder without conceding to Trump’s demands.
“Why hasn’t the Fake News New York Times adjusted its phony article on the corruption and antisemitism which has taken place at Harvard,” Trump posted on Tuesday, criticizing the Times for what he said was a false representation of his position. “They never call for facts, or factchecks, because the Times is a corrupt, unprincipled, and pathetic vehicle of the left. They wrote only negatively about in the last Election, and I won in a landslide.”
Other universities have decided that settling with Trump is preferable to fighting him.
In July, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment. US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the details of the settlement enacted a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, she added that Columbia agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI] programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
That same month, Brown University settled for $50 million and pledged to enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism.
Per the agreement, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
The Trump administration is fighting on to achieve a similar victory over Harvard, and has, to that end, filed an appeal of the ruling which restored Harvard’s federal funding.
In the decision, US federal judge Allison Burroughs said that the Trump acted unconstitutionally, charging that he had used antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Burroughs went on to argue that the federal government violated Harvard’s free speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment and that it was the job of courts to “ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations.”
Harvard has told multiple outlets it is “confident that the Court of Appeals will affirm the district court’s opinion.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.