Uncategorized
Multiple efforts in Jewish sovereignty have self-destructed after 75 years. Can Israel defy history — again?
(JTA) — This week marks Yom Haatzmaut, our beloved Israel’s 75th birthday — the day on the Hebrew calendar when David Ben-Gurion proclaimed “the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate” by establishing a Jewish state in the land of Israel. Together with countless Jews around the world, we express our gratitude to be alive at this moment in history when the Jewish people have sovereignty and a nation to call their own.
But on this anniversary, Yom Haatzmaut’s special prayers and festive afternoon barbecues fail to capture the fraught feelings many of us are experiencing. Jews across the globe in all our different peculiarities and particularities — from all political orientations, religious and secular, progressive and conservative, for and against the judicial overhaul being proposed by the current government — are reeling.
The past few months of terrible turmoil in Israel surrounding the judicial overhaul proposal have shown us how fragile our singular and precious Jewish state is. While Israel’s history is replete with instances when external forces threatened its people, this moment is unique in revealing internal threats to its democracy and social cohesion. We have seen toxic hatred rising among Israeli Jews, with fears of a civil war at an all-time high.
How, then, are we supposed to celebrate Israel on its 75th birthday?
The answer to this question lies at the heart of Jewish history and reveals that now is the moment for a new Zionist revolution led by both Israeli and Diaspora Jews.
Zionism was never just about establishing a Jewish state. It was about defying Jewish history. In 1948, when Ben-Gurion and his fellow Zionist leaders declared Israeli independence, it was nothing less than a radical assault on diasporic Jewish history. It defied the thousands of years of Jews being a minority in other countries, subject to the whims and caprice of other rulers. It defied the image of the weak and defenseless Jew. It even defied Jewish tradition itself, which for centuries was understood by many of its adherents to demand passivity by Jews as they waited for divine deliverance.
For two millennia, Jewish existence was one of vulnerability and victimhood — most often either hiding who we are or suffering for it. The Zionism of 1948 defied diasporic Jewish history by giving Jews power, self-determination and sovereignty to respond to external threats and establish a Jewish state.
Understandably, most of the work of early Zionism was focused on mere survival — establishing a state, providing safe refuge to the millions of Jews fleeing inhospitable lands and contending with enemy countries sworn to destroy the new nation. It succeeded beyond any of the wildest imaginations of its founders. The first 75 years of Israel, in which it has become a powerful and thriving state, are a testament to the success of Zionism in defying diasporic Jewish history.
But the next 75 years of Zionism present and impose on us a different task: To be Zionists today means we must defy a different chapter of Jewish history — one that might be called sovereign Jewish history.
Historians and educators have pointed out a critically important pattern in the history of Jewish self-rule. There are two pre-modern eras in which the Jewish nation enjoyed sovereignty in the land of Israel: at the end of the 11th century BCE with the Davidic Kingdom and the first Temple in Jerusalem, and in 140 BCE when the Hasmonean dynasty reestablished Jewish independence in Judea. But as each approached their 75th year of existence, each started to disintegrate because of internal strife and infighting. The Davidic reign over a united Israel effectively ended when it was split into the two competing kingdoms of Judea and Israel. The Hasmonean kingdom began to fall apart due to infighting between the sons of Alexander and Shlomtzion, the rulers of Judea in the first century BCE.
Sovereign Jewish history tells us that at around the 75th year, experiments in Jewish self-determination faced the most dangerous threat of all: self-destruction.
On its 75th birthday, Israel and its supporters face the internal tensions of sovereignty: What does it mean for Israel to be both a Jewish and democratic state and a home to all its citizens? How can Israel be both at home in the Middle East while modeled on Western democracies? How should its leaders balance majority Jewish culture with minority rights?
The concerns of the old Zionism certainly still exist: how to pursue peace even as Jewish vulnerability and safety continue to be threatened. But they take on a new character in this day and age, forcing us to ask how we can manage and embrace conflicting visions of Jewishness and Israeliness while nurturing social solidarity and cooperation across deep and painful divides.
This Yom Haatzmaut comes at a moment of rupture. But the current crisis in Israel represents an opportunity – a moment for our generation to ensure this rupture defies the pattern of sovereign Jewish history. The generations before us proved that we can rewrite diasporic history, turning a tale of vulnerability and weakness into one of strength and power. Our generation and those that follow must likewise defy sovereign Jewish history and prove that we can protect our Jewish state from the internal threats it faces. Our generation’s task is to overcome our divisions and not let fraternal hatred destroy our shared home.
On this 75th birthday, then, let us learn from our past and look forward toward a new future. Let us continue to celebrate the incredible success by writing a new chapter in the magnificent story of Israel and Zionism.
—
The post Multiple efforts in Jewish sovereignty have self-destructed after 75 years. Can Israel defy history — again? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israeli Intelligence: Iran’s Regime at Most Fragile Point Since 1999
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei listens to the national anthem as Air Force officers salute during their meeting in Tehran, Iran, February 7, 2025. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – Israeli intelligence officials assess that Iran’s ruling Ayatollah regime is at its most fragile point in more than two decades, as nationwide protests continue to escalate.
The scale of the demonstrations and the government’s response have prompted deep concern in Jerusalem.
A near-total internet shutdown is being interpreted as a troubling signal of severe events unfolding on the streets, including widespread killings that remain largely undocumented. Despite protests erupting in roughly 100 cities across Iran, very little video footage has emerged, further underscoring the regime’s clampdown.
Israeli officials warn that the situation could pose a real threat to the stability of Tehran’s leadership if demonstrations continue to grow. However, sources stress that the outcome is highly uncertain. A potential collapse of the regime would not necessarily lead to a democratic government, and intermediate scenarios—such as the replacement of leaders with regents or puppet figures—are also possible.
“The situation is far more complex than it appears,” said a source familiar with security discussions to i24NEWS. “No one truly knows how events will unfold, and we are monitoring every development with extreme caution to determine the best response.”
For now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach is described internally as “monitoring, supporting, hoping.” Israel is keeping a careful distance, allowing Washington to take the lead in applying international pressure on Tehran, while ensuring that the protest movement cannot be linked to Jerusalem in any public way.
Israel’s security establishment continues to follow developments closely, preparing for multiple scenarios in an environment where uncertainty and volatility remain exceptionally high.
Uncategorized
‘Prepare Military Defenses,’ Top US Officials Warn Trump as He Contemplates Strike on Iran
US President Donald Trump speaks during a swearing-in ceremony of Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, US. Photo: Kent Nishimura via Reuters Connect.
i24 News – US President Donald Trump has been warned by senior military officials that more time is needed to prepare for potential strikes against Iran, reports the Telegraph.
The president is reportedly considering military action in response to the violent crackdown by Iranian security forces against demonstrators.
Options under review include targeting elements of Iran’s security services implicated in the mass suppression of protests.
The demonstrations, which have erupted nationwide, have drawn international attention and heightened tensions in the region.
However, commanders stationed in the Middle East have cautioned that any immediate strike could provoke retaliatory attacks against US forces or allied interests. Officials told the White House that US troops need to first “consolidate military positions and prepare defenses” before undertaking any operations that could escalate into a broader conflict.
The warnings reflect concerns over both operational readiness and regional stability. Iran’s military capabilities, including ballistic missiles and proxy forces, could enable swift retaliation, making careful planning essential.
Intelligence assessments are ongoing, with US officials also monitoring Tehran’s response to the protests, which have been met with lethal force by authorities.
Uncategorized
Mamdani denounces Hamas chants, but his delay draws scrutiny
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing mounting scrutiny after a delayed response to a protest in which demonstrators chanted pro-Hamas slogans. The episode reopened lingering doubts among Jewish leaders and voters who have watched Mamdani stumble through earlier flashpoints.
In a statement shared with reporters Friday evening, Mamdani condemned the language used during a protest outside a Queens synagogue Thursday night. The demonstration targeted an event promoting real estate investment in the Jewish communities of Modi’in and Ma’ale Adumim, settlements in the occupied West Bank, and included chants of “Say it loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here.”
Mamdani said the rhetoric and displays at the protest were “wrong and have no place in our city.” An hour later, amid criticism that he had not explicitly named Hamas, he followed up in a post on X, “Chants in support of a terrorist organization have no place in our city.”
It echoed a similar episode after Mamdani’s election in November, when he issued a mixed response to a demonstration outside Manhattan’s Park East Synagogue that featured anti-Israel and antisemitic slogans. He initially questioned the use of a sacred place for an event promoting migration to Israel. He later clarified his statement and said he would consider legislation limiting protests outside synagogues.
Critics said the response, which took nearly a day, was slow and undercut Mamdani’s repeated pledges to protect Jewish New Yorkers, and raised fresh questions about what kind of mayor he intends to be. New York City is home to the largest concentration of Jews in the United States. New York Police Department data shows that antisemitic acts made up 57% of all reported hate crimes citywide in 2025.
A week earlier, on his first day in office, Mamdani — a democratic socialist whose strident criticism of Israel deepened rifts within New York City’s Jewish community during the election — had already drawn criticism from mainstream Jewish organizations for revoking two executive orders by former Mayor Eric Adams that adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism that includes some forms of anti-Zionism, and another penalizing city contractors who engaged in boycotts of Israel.
Mamdani’s response to the Thursday night Hamas chants was issued around 5 pm on Friday. By the time, many Shabbat-observant New Yorkers did not see the mayor’s condemnation until Saturday night.
Some allies who accepted Mamdani’s ideological position privately expressed surprise that the mayor did not immediately denounce the chants, given the predictability of the backlash and the stakes involved. During the election, Mamdani came under fire for his refusal to explicitly condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan used at some pro-Palestinian protests, perceived by many as a call for violence against Jews.
Adam Carlson, a political polling and research expert, called Mamdani’s statement denouncing the Hamas chants reasonable but “not perfect,” after spending much of the day criticizing the mayor’s lack of response, even as Democratic elected officials and some of Mamdani’s progressive allies issued fierce condemnations. “This is not only hurtful to me,” Carlson wrote on X, “but it’s bad politics and distracts from his agenda.”
Former City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who is Jewish and ran in last year’s Democratic mayoral primary, was even more blunt. “I have never been as concerned about the direction of our city as I am today,” Stringer said in an interview. “We are not up to a strong start in bringing the city together.”
Stringer, who was an active leader in combating anti-Muslim hatred after 9/11, said he had hoped that Mamdani would focus on affordability and issues that unite New Yorkers across communities. “But if that’s not to be, then we will fight politically,” he said. He pointed to the upcoming June primaries for Congress and the State Assembly, in which some of Mamdani’s socialist allies — and candidates he has endorsed — could pay a political price. In New York, Stringer said, “we are at the epicenter of Jewish hate, and we’re not going to stand down and allow this to unfold without a political response.”
Speaking with reporters on Saturday, Mamdani declined to address why he didn’t respond immediately, but said his statement was “consistent with my own politics and my own policies.”
A recent poll found that 55% of non-Jewish voters in New York City say Jewish concerns about feeling threatened by Mamdani’s statements on Israel are an overreaction fueled by politics. By contrast, among a smaller sample of 131 Jewish respondents, 53% say they have reason to feel that way, given Mamdani’s statements and associations.
What other city leaders said
While Mamdani remained silent through much of Friday, other city leaders moved quickly. City Council Speaker Julie Menin, City Comptroller Mark Levine, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James all issued statements strongly condemning the pro-Hamas chants.
Speaking Friday night at Park Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan, Menin, who is the first Jewish speaker in the council’s history, was cautious but optimistic about collaborating with Mamdani on issues related to antisemitism in Israel.
“The Torah reminds us that leadership does not emerge from a place of peace, but from a place of struggle,” Menin told congregants. “When it comes to fighting for our Jewish community, I promise I will be the leader that you can count on — one who stands up to hate, who is not afraid to speak out, and who will not look away when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.”
Levine, who is also Jewish, said, “There is no ambiguity” in condemning the support of a terrorist organization. “This cannot be normalized or excused,” he wrote on X. “Truly reprehensible.”
Hochul, who is running for reelection this year, said in a joint appearance with Mamdani last week that in her upcoming State of State address on Tuesday, she will announce safety zones around houses of worship “where people can go freely to a safe place without threats of violence or protests.”
The post Mamdani denounces Hamas chants, but his delay draws scrutiny appeared first on The Forward.