Uncategorized
How hard is it to talk about Israel? We asked 4 Jewish teens
(JTA) — In addition to juggling school, extracurriculars and trying to fit in, American Jewish teens have the added challenge of trying to foster a relationship with Israel in an increasingly hostile environment. Proposed judicial reforms by Israel’s far-right government and terrorist attacks and reprisals have led to a sense of crisis within Israel and its supporters and critics abroad. Discussions in America about the United States’ continued support for the state are front and center on the political stage, and teens have noticed.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency gathered four teens from across the country to talk about their relationship with Israel. Their thoughts are uniquely influenced by their experiences as American Jewish teens who are constantly surrounded by those who often challenge their support and connection to a country where many have family or friends. They are also hesitant to voice their views about Israel due to fear of backlash from critics of Zionism or being told that they are not pro-Israel enough by its fiercest supporters. An edited transcription of their discussion is below.
JTA: How would you describe your relationship with Israel?
Gayah Hampel, 15, Houston: I have a lot of family in Israel, and I haven’t been there since I was 8 years old, but I really, really want to go again. The trip was a very important part of my life, even though I don’t remember much from it. Israel’s history is very important to me, and I really want to go back to take in all the religious stuff there and all the history, because that really fascinates me.
N.Z.,15, Los Angeles (N.Z. asked that their full name not be used because they do not share that they are Jewish and are concerned about antisemitic attacks): I have some family in Israel, but I only visited there once before COVID started. I’m not totally connected to it, because I don’t really talk to my Israeli cousins a lot since they live so far away and the time zones are far. I don’t really have a huge connection to it.
Avi Wolf, 14, Cleveland: I go to a school that’s based on Zionism, and we learn a lot about Israel and Israeli history in our school. We have a ton of teachers who are from Israel, and I visit every Passover along with keeping in touch with my Israeli friends a lot, so I have a very strong connection to Israel.
Emmie Wolf-Dublin, 15, Nashville: I write a lot about Israel for my local paper. I’ve never been, but I have a lot of family there. It’s really important to have a connection to that land, and I feel like it’s definitely important to me. One thing that I’ve thought a lot about, is the whole idea: Would you go fight for your country, for Israel, if there was some war to happen? I think I would.
JTA: If you had to describe your biggest concern about Israel in one or two words, what would it be?
Wolf: Probably safety.
Hampel: The growing terrorist attacks.
N.Z.: Safety and reputation.
Wolf-Dublin: Reputation, publicity.
JTA: What do you mean when you say reputation?
Wolf-Dublin: My personal belief is that it’s not so much about Israel’s actions, but the way that Hamas and Palestine and the Palestinian Authority present them to the world. We would have a lot fewer issues on our hands if we were more careful about that and [would have] a lot more allies on our side if we made different choices in that sector.
N.Z.: Jewish people are already hated enough, especially in America, just for believing in Judaism. Having the addition of making it seem like we’re stealing this land away from Palestinians, people just find more and more ways to be antisemitic towards us and be like, “Oh, well, we have a reason.” So, the more bad things happen and the more things that get blamed on Israel, the worse antisemitic attacks will become.
JTA: Avi and Gayah, you both talked about safety. Is that safety from terrorism within the country or safety from foreign countries? Or both?
Hampel: I would say both, but mainly, what’s happening inside the country because a lot of people living in Israel are also doing the terrorist attacks and physically attacking army personnel and citizens. So [I’m mainly worried about attacks from the] inside because it’s destroying us from inside, which is much scarier than from outside.
Wolf: It’s mainly that there’s a lot of terror attacks. There are a lot of other countries, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon, who surround Israel. They’re very big enemies with Israel, and they have a lot of power, so it’s always scary for the people inside but also [Israel is] the only Jewish state in the world. It’s the one place that all Jews can go and know they’re safe. If Jews don’t have a homeland anymore, it’d be a big issue.
JTA: What is your opinion on equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism? If someone is anti-Zionist, does that necessarily make them antisemitic?
Wolf: In the past, anti-Zionism and antisemitism were very different things before the creation of Israel, but now, in our modern times, there are Jews who are very anti-Zionist and don’t believe Jews should have Israel. If you’re not a Jew, and you’re just a person who’s anti-the State of Israel, which is the only state of the Jews, you can’t antagonize Israel or be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, even if it’s indirect.
Wolf-Dublin: I agree, and I would honestly say that denying Israel’s right to exist and denying the Jewish connection, I think Jewish connection to Israel even more so, but Israel’s right to exist too. I feel like they’re both outright antisemitism.
JTA: Have you ever experienced anti-Zionism or antisemitism against you?
N.Z.: I haven’t personally experienced antisemitism because I don’t share that I’m Jewish at my [public] school. I do see a lot of Israel-Palestine stuff online, and people are like, “get the Jews out, give it to Palestine.” We had a basketball game at this Jewish school that some of my old classmates went to a week or two ago, and they played against a non-Jewish school and they were holding up photos of the Palestine flag and swastikas and screaming Kanye West at some of the kids. It was really bad. I don’t know all the details because I wasn’t there, but I heard it was bad.
Wolf-Dublin: I live in Nashville, and Nashville does not have a big Jewish population. It’s in the south, there’s a lot of anti-Israel stuff, especially at school, but there’s also been Holocaust denial. It’s really everywhere, and I’m also really linked in the Jewish community, so I feel like it’s part of that. I had a teacher who had family in Palestine, and she got into this entire fight with me about it. She left earlier on in the year, so that was a win. I don’t understand how you can do that and still call yourself a professional. So I stopped paying attention in that class because why should I pay respect to someone who can’t respect my heritage?
Hampel: I haven’t personally directly towards me, but in seventh grade, a few years ago, when there were rockets firing every day from Hamas into Israel, like non-stop, there were Jews in my grade who were saying, “Israel is in the wrong, they need to stop attacking,” or “they need to stop attacking the innocent Palestinians.” It wasn’t directed towards me, but I still felt like they were, in a way [being anti-Zionist]. It was indirectly affecting me. I do know of Jews who have experienced antisemitism before.
JTA: How comfortable do you feel sharing your attitudes about Israel when around Jews?
Wolf: I feel extremely comfortable sharing all my opinions about Israel, regardless if it is a Jew or not. In Cleveland, most Jews believe in Israel and think the Jews should have a state. I have very strong attitudes towards Israel, and I don’t mind sharing my attitude with other Jews, even if they don’t believe in Israel or think what Israel is doing is wrong because I believe in it. There’s real history, and you can look in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), and you can see the real claims to Israel and everything. That’s why I’m very comfortable sharing with other Jews.
Hampel: I’m extremely comfortable sharing my opinions about Israel with other Jews and also non-Jews as well because I think it’s important. I’ve noticed that there are so many people who don’t know what’s actually going on [in Israel], and the story behind it. It’s important to me that I share that history, and I share my side of [what’s happening in Israel], especially having people in Israel who are very close to me. I’m very comfortable sharing my views on Israel, for that reason. Also it’s part of my personality so even if I don’t mention it, in our friendship, you’ll most likely hear me saying something about Israel.
Wolf-Dublin: I’m sort of both. In terms of Jewishness, I’m always open to talking about that. In terms of talking about Israel with my Jewish friends, I might bring it up, but I’m not always super-wanting to. I don’t know that I generally do pose [questions]. I’m sure I’ve done it before, but with non-Jews, if somebody brought it up to me, I would not be shying away from the conversation. However, I don’t know that I would personally bring it up myself.
N.Z.: I don’t love sharing my opinion of Israel because I’m afraid I might say something wrong, and then people will come after me for it. Sometimes, when I’m not really confident in what I’m saying, I don’t like sharing my opinion because I’m afraid people will try to shame me for it, especially on something so touchy as a subject like this.
JTA: N.Z., you feel that way even around Jews?
N.Z.: Even around Jews, especially. I feel like talking about this kind of stuff would be even more awkward because if I don’t share the same views as them, I feel like they’d be like, “Oh, well, are you trying to say you’re antisemitic or something?”
JTA: How comfortable do you feel sharing your attitudes about Israel when around non-Jews?
Hampel: I’m comfortable sharing my views about Israel with non-Jews. I personally don’t want to bring it up myself, like Emmie said because if they do disagree with me, I don’t like starting arguments. It’s not something that I seek to do, and so if it becomes an argument, and I started it, that doesn’t sit with me right. However, if it comes up, I will definitely, definitely not back down, and I will defend my opinion.
Wolf: I also feel very comfortable sharing with non-Jews, but as opposed to what Gayah said, I feel comfortable bringing it up. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with me about Israel or its attributes. I would obviously want to make sure to show the proper facts, but I feel very comfortable and confident with non-Jews because it’s the Jewish homeland, and I want to fight for what I believe in.
N.Z.: I guess if I’m really, really being pressured to share my opinion, I would, but it’s definitely not something I’d bring up because I don’t really like getting into fights about such touchy subjects.
JTA: Some of you said that you don’t want to express your attitudes about Israel, because you’re worried about starting fights. Has that happened to you?
Wolf: I’ve definitely gotten into arguments, but it has been with Jewish people. It was very interesting because they were talking about stuff, but I could tell it was from the news, but the media was twisting it. It’s like, “Israel attacks the Gaza Strip and fired a missile at an apartment building.” Yeah, it’s true, but they were just doing it after Hamas had killed a bunch of their civilians.
Hampel: That has happened before. It started not as a conversation about Israel, but it morphed into that, and it was very disappointing to me because it was such a twisted version of Israel that I definitely had not seen before. I definitely don’t believe it at all, any bit of it, and it was also with a Jew.
JTA: To change topics slightly, what have you heard about Israel’s new government?
Hampel: To be completely honest, I do not follow Israeli politics. It’s not that I don’t want to, but I just don’t. It’s more important to me to know about the events that happen, the dangers that happen, I want to know of that, or the good things that happen too, but the politics, I don’t keep up with that at all.
Wolf: I’m pretty involved in the politics and everything. In our Hebrew class, we had a whole week, just learning about the Israeli government, how it works, and my teacher presented to us all the political parties during the election. We learn about it, some good, some bad, and I know there’s a lot going on in the media. It’s kind of hard to get the correct sources since I’m not living in Israel.
N.Z.: I really don’t keep up with politics in general, but I haven’t heard anything about the new Israeli government at all.
Wolf-Dublin: I’m not very happy about it. I’m pretty into politics in general, but I definitely don’t agree with 90% of the things they’re doing. There’s a bill on drag queens in Tennessee right now that’s probably about to get passed that will outlaw anybody performing in drag. That’s the kind of thing that’s alarmingly similar [in Israel, whose new government includes opponents of LGBTQ rights], and I can see that happening in Israel, and that’s not something I want to see.
JTA: Emmie, you’re seeing trends in Tennessee that are similar to what the new Israeli government is proposing?
Wolf-Dublin: Everybody can have their own opinion, but I have a lot of issues with the current government, and I have a lot more issues with what they’re doing with the judicial system.
JTA: Where do you get your info about the Israeli government?
Wolf-Dublin: Either from my dad or just reading.
JTA: Among the political issues that you think are most important. Where would you rank Israel? This can be compared to hot-button issues, like reproductive rights, the economy, immigration, climate change, LGBTQ rights and concerns about democracy. Where on that list, would you rank Israel?
Hampel: I would say for me that it’s pretty high. I wouldn’t say it’s the highest, but it’s pretty high for me, because even if I wasn’t Jewish, Israel produces a lot of things that everyone uses and has so many inventions that we all use. It’s important to keep that safe, and it’s still a democracy. That’s very important in today’s society. It’s not at the top of my list, but it’s pretty high up.
N.Z.: I’m not really a political person, so it’s not really the top thing on my mind, but it’s definitely an issue that I read up about every now and then.
Wolf-Dublin: I don’t know that I have a clear ranking. I don’t think I could clearly rank it, but I would say it’s important, but its politics are only as important to me as a citizen of the world and not so much. Its existence is important to me.
—
The post How hard is it to talk about Israel? We asked 4 Jewish teens appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Could a foie gras ban remove chopped liver from the deli menu?
Could an effort to defend ducks and curb the cruelty that some believe creates foie gras accidentally outlaw a favorite staple in Jewish delis? One Jewish resident of Washington D.C. fears that could be the case.
A measure on the ballot in Washington next Tuesday would bar the sale or distribution of “any fattened bird liver product within the District of Columbia.”
Activists say the legislation aims to ban the sale of any product resulting from force-feeding a bird, including foie gras. But the D.C. ordinance defines “fattened bird liver product” as “any food product or by-product made from the livers of birds fattened through any method or practice … regardless of marketing terminology.” It includes foie gras, pâtés, spreads, and processed meat products derived from the livers of “ducks, geese, chickens, turkeys, guineas, or squabs.”
“I am a fan of all things liver,” said Jordan Weissmann, an editor at the Progressive Policy Institute, who calls himself a libertarian when it comes to gastronomic matters. “I grew up eating chopped liver. I’m a fan of schmaltz and all pâtés, but there are much bigger issues facing Washington D.C. right now. So I was not going to get too fired up about this.”
Then a friend suggested he look at the language of the ordinance. Its lack of specificity, leaving enforcement up to interpretation, ruffled his feathers.
“My eyes popped out of my head,” he told the Forward. “It sounds like a sweeping ban. I immediately fired off a tweet.” That post and the conversation it generated has since gone viral, garnering thousands of views and hundreds of comments.
Pro-Animal DC, the campaign that drafted the ban, insists that’s not the intention. The law simply seeks to end the torture of farm-raised fowl.
“When laws are enforced this would not affect Jewish delis or chopped chicken liver,” said Natalie Fulton, media and content lead for Pro-Animal DC. She said when regulators enforce laws, they look at their entirety. They don’t look at “a sentence taken out of context.”
In addition to ending the sale of poultry products, the proposed ordinance also makes force-feeding birds illegal within the District. It doesn’t regulate possession of force-fed products or affect what Bubbe puts in the blender.
Fulton acknowledges that the definition of poultry, including chickens, is quite broad.
“We basically put that in there to make sure foie gras producers wouldn’t just shift to chickens. I’m not even sure it’s possible biologically. It safeguards if someone tries to get around the law that way.” If the initiative passes, she said, the City Council can clarify the language to prevent any confusion.
French for “fatty liver,” foie gras is the liver of a duck or goose that has been deliberately fattened by force-feeding, a process the industry calls gavage.
Workers insert a tube down the bird’s esophagus to pump in grain and fat, causing the liver to swell with fat until it is many times its normal size. The organ is then harvested, deveined, and seasoned in a variety of ways before it is baked in a terrine or pan-seared.
Mark Caro, author of The Foie Gras Wars, a book about a local war between Chicago chefs that escalated into a nationwide and international debate and a citywide ban of foie gras that lasted two years before it was repealed, writes that chopped liver is in fact a direct descendant of foie gras, which was once central to Jewish cuisine.
“The most-repeated theory is that foie gras survived thanks to Jews who had learned of force-feeding practices while under Roman rule and carried the tradition around Europe as they kept getting kicked out of countries,” Caro wrote. It even became the topic of a Talmudic commentary on animal cruelty by 11th Century French rabbi Rashi, as Judaic law prohibits tza’ar ba’alei chayim, or the suffering of animals.
But there were practical reasons to force feed geese at the time, Caro wrote. In the Mediterranean, Jews could cook with olive oil. In Babylonia, they could use sesame oil. But as Jews migrated north and west across Europe, they needed something besides pork fat, beef fat and butter to conduct heat in their skillets. The chosen alternative was poultry fat, or schmaltz, extracted from fattened goose livers.
In his book, Caro also includes the story of Holocaust survivor and third-generation Hungarian goose farmer Moshe Friedman, who in 1948 began producing fat goose livers on a kibbutz in the new Jewish state, and made it one of Israel’s first exports.
Israel is now one of 20 countries that bans foie gras produced by force feeding. California, New York City, Pittsburgh, Portland, Ore., and Brookline, Mass. all prohibit stores and restaurants from selling products from force-fed ducks and geese. A similar measure is on the ballot this fall in Denver.
Weissmann just hopes the Denver ordinance is more precise.
“You’d have to be an overzealous vegan to throw all the pâté out of Whole Foods,” he said. “You never know.”
The post Could a foie gras ban remove chopped liver from the deli menu? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
DSA to LA mayoral favorite Nithya Raman: BDS or our endorsement — pick one
When Nithya Raman told Jewish Angelenos last month that she believed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was a “legitimate” form of protest, she didn’t go far enough for the Democratic Socialists of America, whose national leadership threatened to expel her for not championing the Israel boycott outright.
The organization’s staunchly anti-Zionist politics have long clashed with Raman, a progressive councilmember who is running for mayor of Los Angeles — and in a dead heat with incumbent Karen Bass in a recent L.A. Times poll. Though she has called the war in Gaza a genocide, Raman has never been a hardliner on Israel, raising the question of whether the DSA would dig in its heels or back a popular candidate who doesn’t meet all of its criteria.
The answer arrived on Monday night in a pair of resolutions by the DSA’s National Political Committee, which together struck some form of compromise. The committee voted not to expel Raman — at least not before the election. But it threatened to revoke the LA chapter’s earlier endorsement if she does not commit to supporting BDS in a town hall that the LA chapter is expected to convene on Saturday.
Even that measure, though, may not have teeth. It’s unclear whether the LA chapter will actually convene for such a meeting — or whether the national organization even could pull the local group’s endorsement. In a statement following the vote, DSA-LA co-chair Leslie Chang said the chapter was standing by its endorsement.
”Our members voted in a supermajority, democratic decision to support her campaign and we are excited to continue knocking on doors for Nithya and our entire slate through Nov. 3,” Chang said.
The expulsion timeline, on the other hand, gives her until Jan. 1 to endorse BDS and sign on to DSA’s campaign to stop the shipment of weapons for Israel out of Los Angeles International Airport. (Municipal authorities have limited direct legal jurisdiction over international aviation and cargo regulations.)
The lengthy resolutions reflect the fierce competition between ideology and pragmatism inside the DSA as its members increasingly run for and win public office. With Zohran Mamdani at the helm of New York City, a Raman victory would mean DSA members run City Hall in the country’s two largest cities. But many in the organization believe Raman’s politics dilute the brand.
Raman, who in 2020 became the first DSA member elected to LA’s City Council, has sought to thread a needle on Israel during her time in office and on the campaign trail. DSA’s Los Angeles chapter voted to censure her after she accepted an endorsement from Democrats for Israel–Los Angeles, a liberal Zionist group. At the time, Raman told DFI-LA she believed Israel had a right to exist, departing from DSA dogma.
She also touts her support for the Jewish community after Oct. 7. In the wake of the attack, Raman — whose district includes some of the city’s largest Jewish neighborhoods — criticized the DSA for a statement she said was “unacceptably devoid of empathy.”
She has also disappointed some Jewish constituents by supporting a ceasefire in Gaza in early 2024 and by telling controversial left-wing influencer Hasan Piker earlier this year she believed the war was a genocide. She reiterated the genocide remark at the Jewish community forum Sept. 29, crossing what the local Jewish federation said was a “red line” for political candidates.
Thanks to a wave of support from less-active DSA members, the Los Angeles chapter endorsed Raman Sept. 2 by a 937 to 484 vote.
The Raman campaign declined to comment for this story.
‘For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA’
DSA-LA’s endorsement came under the microscope of the National Political Committee after it was revealed that the chapter had failed to include a question about BDS in its candidate questionnaire.
The omission of BDS violated a rule about pro-Palestinian policy the national organization passed last year. Known as R22, the rule outlines conditions for revoking endorsements or expelling a member if they make certain pro-Israel statements, such as saying that Israel has “a right to defend itself” or opposing BDS.
Chapter leaders called the missing question an “oversight.”
Meanwhile, Raman’s language on the Israel boycott — if not her stance on the issue — has changed over time.
Back in 2020, when she was running for council, Raman told the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, “I absolutely do not support BDS,” adding, “At a time when hate crimes are rising in LA and across the world, it is dangerous for a candidate to be so closely aligned with a political movement bent on demonizing Israel and the Jewish people.”
She has spoken less forcefully against boycotting during her campaign. In the Jewish community forum last month, she said that while BDS was a legitimate form of peaceful protest, it was not part of her platform or her focus on LA.
Massive groans in the Skirball auditorium when Nithya Raman defends BDS as a “legitimate form of protest.” Question from @AJCGlobal. https://t.co/W2Uml0lPMI
— Louis Keene (@thislouis) September 30, 2026
In a statement to LA’s DSA chapter sent in advance of Monday’s vote, Raman’s stance on BDS was vague, seemingly supporting BDS as a form of pressure on Israel but stopping short of adopting it herself.
“I believe the best way for working Angelenos to stand in solidarity with Gaza is through non-violent protest, legislative action and diplomatic pressure, including BDS,” Raman said.
DSA members on X appeared split on whether the statement satisfied the requirements of R22.
A second round of questions
The questions Raman will be expected to answer at an Oct. 31 town hall are a familiar list of anti-Zionist litmus tests. In addition to receiving a point-blank question about her support for BDS, she will be asked to make two commitments: to refrain from any affiliation with “Zionist lobby groups” and to oppose any legislation that harms Palestinians.
She will also be asked to oppose legislation “that would allow direct financial donations of any kind to Israel and/or settler NGOs who carry out the mission of Israeli settlement and Palestinian dispossession/displacement, such as the Jewish National Fund,” and to condemn weapons shipments from LAX.
If the meeting doesn’t happen by Oct. 31, the resolution says, the national committee will order DSA-LA to pull the endorsement. And if DSA-LA refuses to comply — either by not holding a meeting or maintaining its endorsement — the chapter and its leadership could be censured.
DSA-LA leadership didn’t seem particularly troubled by the possibility of a break from the national committee.
“As DSA-LA is a membership-driven organization,” Chang, its co-chair, said, “any decision around our electoral strategy lies with our members and we will be maintaining our endorsement of Nithya and all our candidates.”
Meanwhile, the resolution calling for Raman’s expulsion if she has not complied by Jan. 1 adds that if she doesn’t win Nov. 3, “all deadlines and proposed disciplinary votes for CM Raman and the LA chapter in this proposal shall be null and void.”
If she does not win the election, Raman’s council term will end in 2028.
The post DSA to LA mayoral favorite Nithya Raman: BDS or our endorsement — pick one appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
What can we make of the initial results of the Israeli elections?
אַ גרױסער יום-טובֿ איז געפֿײַערט געװאָרן אין ישׂראל, דעם 27סטן אָקטאָבער — אַ יום-טובֿ פֿאַר דעמאָקראַטיע און אַ יום-טובֿ פֿאַר ייִדן.
דאָ האָבן אַלע רעגיסטרירטע בירגער פֿון 18 יאָר און עלטער געהאַט די מעגלעכקײט צו שטימען פֿאַר אײנער פֿון 35 פּאָליטישע פּאַרטײען: סײַ ייִדישע און סײַ ניט-ייִדישע פּאַרטײען, כּדי אױסצוקלײַבן אַ נײַע רעגירונג פֿאַר אַ קאַדענץ װאָס — לױטן געזעץ — דאַרף אױסהאַלטן 4 יאָר. אין דער אמתן איז זעלטן װען עס האַלט אַזױ לאַנג אױס, נאָר אין די װאַלן פֿון 2022 האָט בנימין נתניהוס רעגירונג טאַקע אױסגעהאַלטן.
עטלעכע פֿאַקטן וועגן די איצטיקע װאַלן
- איבער 12,000 שטימערטער זײַנען געװען צעשפּרײט איבער אַרום 1,200 ייִשובים.
- טױזנטער ישׂראלים מיט שטימרעכט זײַנען ספּעציעל אָנגעפֿלױגן פֿון אַנדערע לענדער, כּדי אָנטײלצונעמען אין די װאַלן. צװישן זײ — די װעלט-באַרימטע אַקטריסע גל גדוט (גאַל גאַדאָט) װאָס האָט לעצטנס באַקומען אַן ערן־דאָקטאָראַט פֿון בר־אילן אוניװערסיטעט.
- צענדליקער טױזנטער סאָלדאַטן האָבן געשטימט פֿאַרן וואַלטאָג, דעם 27סטן. די רעזולטאַטן װעלן שפּעטער צוגעגעבן װערן און קענען האָבן אַ ממשתדיקע השפּעה אױף דעם אַרױסקום.
- עס האָבן געשטימט 5,695,682 פֿון די בירגער מיט שטימרעכט (7,331,981). דאָס איז אַרום 77.7% — דער העכסטער פּראָצענט מענטשן וואָס האָבן געשטימט במשך פֿון לאַנגע יאָרן.
די פּרעלימינאַרע רעזולטאַטן מיט אַ טאָג שפּעטער
לױט די אַנקעטעס פֿון עטלעכע טעג פֿאַר די װאַלן האָט מען פֿאָרױסגעזאָגט אַז פֿון די מעגלעכע 120 כּנסת־ערטער װעלן בערך 52 גיין פֿאַר די שותּפֿים פֿון נתניהון; 54 פֿאַר די קעגנערס פֿון נתניהו, און 14 פֿאַר די אַראַבישע פּאַרטײען.
װי נאָר דאָס װײלן האָט זיך געשלאָסן 10 אַ זייגער אין אָוונט , האָבן די פֿאַרשײדענע אױספֿרעג-פֿירמעס שױן אָנגעהױבן אַרױסזאָגן זײערע נבֿיאות. עס איז שוין אָנגענומען, אַז זײַט-בײַ-זײַט מיט אַ צאָל וויכטיקע שטימערטער, שטעלט מען אױס שטימקעסטלעך, און מע בעט די װײלער אַרײַנװאַרפֿן אין קעסטל אַ קאָפּיע פֿון זײער אױסװײל. בערך 600 אַזעלכע שטימקעסטלעך האָט מען אויפֿגעשטעלט איבער אַ צאָל ייִשובים. די אויספרעג-פֿירמעס באַאַרבעטן די דאָזיקע „פּאַראַלעלע“ רעזולטאַטן צוזאַמען מיט געװיסע אַנדערע פֿאַקטאָרן און מאַכן אַ סך-הכּל פֿון װי עס װעלן אפֿשר אױסזען די לעצטגילטיקע רעזולטאַטן.
די פֿיר הױפּט טעלעװיזיע־סטאַנציעס האָבן אַלע געהאַט אָנגעשטעלט אױספֿרעג-פֿירמעס, און דרײַ פֿון זײ האָבן געהאַט מער אָדער װײניקער די זעלבע רעזולטאַטן: אַז נתניהוס בלאָק האָט פֿאַרשפּילט. די פֿערטע טעלעװיזיע־סטאַנציע, ארוץ 14, װאָס רעכנט זיך פֿאַר אַ גרױסן שטיצער פֿון די רעכטע און פֿון נתניהון – האָט לרובֿ געגעבן ענלעכע רעזולטאַטן, אָבער אָנגעװיזן אַז נתניהו װעט זײַן דער געװינער.
װי אַ רעזולטאַט פֿון די דאָזיקע מוסטער-שטימען, האָבן נאָך האַלבער נאַכט געמאָלדן סײַ גדי אײַזנקאָט פֿון דער „ישר“ פּאַרטײ, װאָס האָט באַװיזן 23 שטימען, סײַ נפֿתּלי בענעט פֿון דער „ביחד“ פּאַרטײ מיט יאיר לפּיד (מיט 12 שטימען) — אַז נתניהו און זײַן בלאָק האָט פֿאַרשפּילט.
נתניהו, דאַקעגן, האָט זיך ניט אונטערגעגעבן, און דעקלאַרירט אַז ער האָט די גרעסטע פּאַרטײ, און אַז מע דאַרף װאַרטן אױף די אמתע שטימען, װאָס מע װעט צומאָרגנס דערגאַנצן. און מיט דעם איז מען געגאַנגען שלאָפֿן – אַז נתניהוס קעגנערס האָבן געװוּנען.
אַ גאַנצע נאַכט האָט מען געציילט די אמתע שטימען. אין דער פֿרי האָבן מענטשן זיך אױפֿגעװעקט צו גאָר אַן אַנדער רעאַליטעט. סײַ נאָכן אױססאָרטירן און אָפּצײלן בערך אַ דריטל פֿון די שטימען 7 אַ זייגער אין דער פֿרי, סײַ ווען מע האָט שוין איבערגעציילט 50% מיט צוויי שעה שפּעטער, האָט אױסגעזען אַז נתניהו און זײַן בלאָק פֿון דער איצטיקער רעגירונגס קאָאַליציע װעט האָבן די מערסטע ערטער אין דער כּנסת און װעט קענען צוריק װערן די אָנפירענדיקע פּאַרטיי אין לאַנד.
די אַראַבישע פּאַרטײען האָבן אויך געהאַט גרױס דערפֿאָלג. זײערע שטיצערס זײַנען אַרױס אין די טױזנטער צו שטימען (מע זאָגט אַז בן-גבֿיר און זײַן פּאַרטײ האָט זײ אָנגעבייזערט) און באַקומען אַ גרעסערע צאָל ערטער אין כּנסת װי װען עס איז. די פֿאַרגרעסערטע צאָל אַראַבישע װײלער האָבן אױך פֿאַרגרעסערט דעם מינימום צאָל שטימען װאָס אַ קלענערע פּאַרטײ האָט געמוזט אָנזאַמלען כּדי צו דערגרייכן דעם מינימום פֿון 4 ערטער. אױב אין די פֿריִערדיקע װאַלן פֿון 2022 האָט אַ פּאַרטײ באַדאַרפֿט אַרײַנציִען 155,000 שטימען, איז שאַרף געװאַקסן דער מינימום נעענטער צו 184,000 צוליב דער הױכער צאָל װײלער (ייִדן און ניט-ייִדן) װאָס זײַנען אַרױס שטימען.
נאָכן איבערציילן בערך 77% פון די שטימען הײַנט ביז 2 אַ זייגער נאָך מיטאָג, ווערן די 120 כּנסת־מיטגלידער אײַנגעטיילט אַזוי: נתניהוס בלאָק — 54, די קעגנער — 49 און די אַראַבישע פּאַרטייען — 17.
צי די רעזולטאַטן וועלן זיך בײַטן נאָך דעם ווי מע האָט איבערגעציילט 100% וועט מען נאָך זען. מע דאַרף אויך אין זינען האָבן די עטלעכע הונדערט טױזנט שטימען פֿון די סאָלדאַטן. דאָס קען נאָך אַרױסראַטעװען יועז הענדעלס „מילואימניקים“ פּאַרטײ, וואָס איך האָב באַשריבן אין אַ פֿריִערדיקן אַרטיקל.
סך-הכּלען און מעגלעכע אױסקומען
געװיסע פּאַרטײען פֿון נתניהוס בלאָק האָבן פֿאָדערונגען װאָס קענען זײַן פֿאַר אים שװער אױסצופֿירן. למשל, די חרדים האָבן געזאָגט אַז זײ װעלן זיך דאָס מאָל ניט פֿאַראײניקן מיטן ליכּוד, כּל־זמן מע װעט ניט באַפֿרײַען צענדליקער טױזנטער פֿרומע יונגעלײַט פֿון מיליטער-דינסט. בן-גבֿיר האָט געפֿאָדערט אַז ער זאָל זײַן דער פֿאַרטײדיקונג־מיניסטער. אַנדערע פּאַרטײען װעלן זיכער האָבן נאָך פֿאָדערונגען.
עס קען זײַן, אַז נתניהו װעט װעלן זיך אָפּטשעפּענען פֿון די קאָפּװײטיקן פֿון זײַנע ביז-איצטיקע שותּפֿים, און זוכן זיך צו פֿאַראײניקן מיט געװיסע פּאַרטײען פֿון זײַנע פּאָליטישע קעגנערס.
די מערסטע ציוניסטישע פּאַרטײען װאָס האָבן זיך קעגנגעשטעלט נתניהוס בלאָק, װעלן זיכער ניט װעלן זיך פֿאַראײניקן מיטן ליכּוד כּל־זמן נתניהו איז אין דער שפּיץ. צי װעט ער זײַן גרײט צו זײַן אויפֿן צװײטן אָרט? לױט די איצטיקע געזעצן קען ער ניט װערן אַ מיניסטער אַזוי לאַנג ווי מע פֿירט קעגן אים אַ משפּט. צי װעט עמעצער צוליב דעם אײַנפֿירן אַן ענדערונג אינעם געזעץ?
די װאָס האָבן הײַנט אפֿשר דעם גרעסטן כּוח זײַנען די צװײ אַראַבישע פּאַרטײען. װי פּראַגמאַטיש װעלן זײ קענען זײַן? זײ װעלן כּמעט װי זיכער זיך ניט פֿאַראײניקן מיט אַ טײל פֿון נתניהוס בלאָק. די גרעסערע גרופּע האָט זיך אױסגעדריקט אַז זײ זײַנען גרײט אַלץ צו טאָן כּדי נתניהו זאָל ניט קענען צוריק װערן דער פּרעמיער. פֿון דער אַנדערער זײַט זײַנען ליכּודס אײנציקע מעגלעכע שותּפֿים די פּאַרטייען אין דער אַנטי-נתניהו מחנה. די מערסטע פֿון זײ האָבן צוגעזאָגט זײערע װײלער אַז זײ װעלן קײנמאָל ניט װערן שותּפֿים פֿון די אַראַבישע פּאַרטײען.
אין מײַן פֿריִערדיקן אַרטיקל האָב איך דערציילט וועגן דעם קאַנדידאַט יואבֿ סעגאַלאָװיטש – דעם געוועזענעם, פֿאַרדינסטפֿולן הויפּט פֿון דער ישׂראל־פּאָליציי וואָס פֿיגורירט אויפֿן צווייטן אָרט אין דער איסלאַמישער רע״ם פּאַרטײ. איז מעגלעך אַז די ציוניסטישע פּאַרטייען וועלן זײַן גרייט צו מאַכן אַ קאָאַליציע מיט זיי? ס׳קלינגט אוממעגלעך אָבער אין דער ישׂראל־פּאָליטיק קענען תּמיד פֿאָרקומען סורפּריזן.
The post What can we make of the initial results of the Israeli elections? appeared first on The Forward.
