Connect with us

Uncategorized

Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The op-ed was typical of the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page, extolling the virtues of moderation in all things.

The difference was that the author of the piece published Wednesday, Bezalel Smotrich, has a reputation for extremism, and the political landscape he was imagining is in Israel, not America.

Experts who track the U.S.-Israel relationship say the op-ed had a clear purpose: to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be rattled by his new extremist partners in governing Israel. 

Those partners include Smotrich, the Religious Zionist bloc leader and self-described “proud homophobe” whom Israeli intelligence officials have accused of planning terrorist attacks — and who was sworn in as finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government Thursday. They also include Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement for his past support of Jewish terrorists, who will oversee Israel’s police.

The presence of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their parties in Netanyahu’s governing coalition has alarmed American liberals, including some in the Biden administration. But insiders say conservatives are feeling spooked, too.

“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who just returned from a tour of Israel where he met with senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming governments. “And I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”

In his op-ed published on Tuesday, two days before the new Israeli government was sworn in, Smotrich sought to persuade Americans that the new government is not the hotbed of ultranationalist and religious extremism it has been made out to be in the American press.

“The U.S. media has vilified me and the traditionalist bloc to which I belong since our success in Israel’s November elections,” he wrote. “They say I am a right-wing extremist and that our bloc will usher in a ‘halachic state’ in which Jewish law governs. In reality, we seek to strengthen every citizen’s freedoms and the country’s democratic institutions, bringing Israel more closely in line with the liberal American model.”

The op-ed is at odds with the stated aims of the coalition agreements; whereas Smotrich says there will be no legal changes to disputed areas in the West Bank, the agreements include a pledge to annex areas at an unspecified time, and to legalize outposts deemed illegal even under Israeli law. He says changes to religious practice will not involve coercion, but the agreement allows businesses to decline service “because of a religious belief,” which a member of his party has anticipated could extend to declining service to LGBTQ people.

Netanyahu has alienated the American left with his relentless attacks on its preference for a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he perceives as dangerous and naive. (He also differs from them on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.) He has instead cultivated a base on the right through close ties with the Republican Party and among evangelicals, made possible in part because he has long espoused the values traditional conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a united robust Western stance against extremism and terrorism.

But his alliance with Smotrich and others perceived as theocratic extremists may be a bridge too far even for Netanyahu’s conservative friends, who champion democratic values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, a veteran defense official in multiple Republican administrations.

“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former presidents and the secretary of state under the late George H. W. Bush.

Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the op-ed was likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with those conservatives in mind. 

“The Wall Street Journal piece was designed to appeal to traditional conservatives,” he said. “It was designed to send a message to the American public writ large that the way in which Smotrich and perhaps [Itamar] Ben Gvir have been described is based on past utterances and not necessarily their forward-looking policies.”

The immediate predicate for the op-ed, insiders say, was likely a New York Times editorial on Dec. 17 that called the incoming government “a significant threat to the future of Israel” because of the extremist positions Smotrich and other partners have embraced, including the annexation of the West Bank, restrictions on non-Orthodox and non-Jewish citizens, diminishing the independence of the courts, reforming the Law of Return that would render ineligible huge chunks of Diaspora Jewry, and anti-LGBTQ measures.

Smotrich in his op-ed casts the changes not as radical departures from democratic norms but as tweaks that would align Israel more with U.S. values. He said he would pursue a “broad free-market policy” as finance minister. He likened religious reforms to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Christian service providers to decline work from LGBTQ couples. 

“For example, arranging for a minuscule number of sex-separated beaches, as we propose, scarcely limits the choices of the majority of Israelis who prefer mixed beaches,” Smotrich wrote. “It simply offers an option to others.”

In the West Bank, Smotrich said, his finance ministry would promote the building of infrastructure and employment which would benefit Israeli Jewish settlers and Palestinians alike. “This doesn’t entail changing the political or legal status of the area.”

Such salves contradict the stated aims of the new government’s coalition agreement, Anshel Pfeffer, a Netanyahu biographer and analyst for Haaretz said in a Twitter thread picking apart Smotrich’s op-ed.

“Smotrich says his policy doesn’t mean changing the political or legal status of the occupied territories while annexation actually appears in the coalition agreement and his plans certainly change the legal status of the settlements,” Pfeffer said.

Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said foreign media alarm at the composition of the incoming government was premature.

“I suspect that the vast mass of people will maintain the support that they have for Israel because it hasn’t got anything to do with the passing of one government to another and has everything to do with the principle that Israel is a pro-American democracy in a region that’s pretty important,” she said.

That said, Pletka said, the changes in policy embraced by Smotrich and his cohort could alienate Americans should they become policy.

“I think a lot of things can change if the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government becomes policy, but right now, it’s rhetoric,” she said. “What you tend to see in normal governments is that they need to make a series of compromises between rhetoric that  plays to their base and governance.”

Pletka said Netanyahuu’s stated ambition to expand the 2020 Abraham Accords to peace with Saudi Arabia would likely inhibit plans by Smotrich to annex the West Bank. In the summer of 2020, the last time Netanyahu planned annexation, the United Arab Emirates, one of the four Arab Parties to the Abraham Accords, threatened to pull out unless Netanyahu pulled back — which he did.

“It’s not just the relationship with the United States,” she said. “This might alienate their new friends in the Gulf, which, at the end of the day, may actually have more serious consequences.”

Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to relay the impression that he will keep his coalition partners on a short leash.

“They’re joining me, I’m not joining them,” he said earlier this month. “I’ll have two hands firmly on the steering wheel. I won’t let anybody do anything to LGBT [people] or to deny our Arab citizens their rights or anything like that.”

Zakheim said that Netanyahu, who is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, from 1996 to 1999 and then from 2009 to 2021, has proven chops at steering rangy coalitions — but there are two key differences now. 

Netanyahu wants his coalition partners to pass a law that would effectively end his trial for criminal fraud, and so they exercise unprecedented leverage over him. Additionally, Netanyahu in the past has faced the greatest pressure from haredi Orthodox parties, who are susceptible to suasion by funding their impoverished sector. That’s not true of his new ideologically driven partners.

“If you look at his past governments, he has really never been forced into real policy decisions  by those to the right of him,” Zekheim said. “Now he’s got a problem because these 15 or so seats of those to his right are interested in policy, not just in money.”

Makovsky said Netanyahu appears to be leaving behind a conservatism that was sympathetic to the outlook of its American counterpart.

“His success has been that he’s a stabilizer. He’s risk-averse. He’s focused on the prosperity of the country, with high-tech success. He’s the one to be seen as the tenacious guardian against Iranian nuclear influence,” he said. “And those are things people could relate to. Now,  it just seems like he’s just throwing the playbook out the window.”


The post Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

What we get wrong about how Germany has reckoned with its Nazi past

On a recent Freakonomics episode about the German film director Werner Herzog, host Stephen Dubner voiced a familiar assertion about postwar Germany’s confrontation with the Nazi past — an assertion shared by many Americans but one that is, in fact, a partial myth.

“It’s always impressed me,” Dubner said to Herzog, “the way that Germany, after the Second World War, assessed what had happened and in its schools and its institutions tried to come to grips with why and how, and to educate its successive generations.”

What’s wrong with this statement? At its core, it recycles a narrative crafted by the United States and its anti-Soviet allies during the Cold War — one designed for geopolitical purposes and carried into the 21st century.

Though it’s true that German schools have been admirably rigorous in teaching the history of the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and Germany has taken many other historic steps to make amends, German government agencies spent decades avoiding a full confrontation with their own past. Files documenting the depth of Nazi continuity within the postwar civil service were kept under lock and key well into the new century.

In my book, Nazis at the Watercooler: War Criminals in Postwar German Government Agencies, I reveal how West Germany hired seriously incriminated ex-Nazis for civil service positions and tell the story of a reckoning that took nearly six decades to begin — a chapter in Germany’s confrontation with its past that still receives too little recognition.

For decades, ministries shielded their records from public view. The first major breakthrough came in 2005, when Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, appalled to discover that his ministry’s internal newsletter had been publishing glowing obituaries for diplomats implicated in Nazi crimes, established an independent team of historians to examine the Foreign Office archives. Their report, released five years later, documented not only the involvement of German diplomats in the machinery of the Third Reich but also the ease with which many resumed their careers in the West German state.

Over the past two decades, virtually every major German government institution has followed the Foreign Office’s lead — commissioning historians to examine old files and arriving at similarly disturbing conclusions. There was foot-dragging along the way; the Chancellor’s Office, the nerve center of the German government, did not release the findings of its own self-examination until last year.

These long delays raise a question that reaches beyond Germany. If a nation widely praised for its moral clarity took more than half a century to confront the actions of its institutions, what might that suggest about how the United States will one day confront the legacy of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement?

Of all the West German government agencies in the first postwar decade, none — with the exception of the foreign intelligence service — was a more welcoming harbor for ex-Nazis with blood on their hands than the Bundeskriminalamt, or Federal Criminal Police Office, a German version of the FBI known by its initials, BKA. The depth of this infiltration was exposed by Dieter Schenk, a security specialist at the BKA who quit over the West German government’s cozy relationships with right-wing dictators.

While at the BKA, Schenk heard hushed rumors about investigators with dark pasts. After resigning, he began to dig. He uncovered documents that exposed about two dozen of the BKA’s top employees who had served with Nazi units that committed war crimes and were never put on trial.

Schenk published his findings in a 2001 bestseller titled Auf dem rechten Auge blind: Die braunen Wurzeln des BKA (Turning a Blind Eye to the Right: The Brown Roots of the BKA). Several years later, the BKA commissioned its own panel of historians, who reached conclusions similar to Schenk’s. Their findings were published in 2011.

More inquiries followed.

Even the super-secretive Federal Intelligence Service, the BND, opened up about former SS officers who landed jobs at the West German spy agency, some with the assistance of American intelligence, despite having served in Nazi units that committed war crimes. One of the most stunning revelations was that in the late 1950s and early 60s the BND had on its payroll one of the most sought-after war criminals — Walter Rauff, hiding out in Chile.

Historians hired by the Justice Ministry found that in the late 1950s about half the senior employees had been card-carrying Nazis, including lawyers who attended meetings planning the Holocaust. A 2016 report documented how senior officials helped former Third Reich jurists paper over their pasts.

A 2018 Interior Ministry report exposed networks of ex-Nazi administrators who resumed their careers with the help of testimonials they wrote for one another. These testimonials were dubbed Persilscheine, or “Persil notes,” after a popular laundry detergent — making an ex-Nazi’s past appear as clean as fresh laundry.

One section of the report catalogues the excuses job candidates used to whitewash their wartime acts: They were coerced into joining the party; they needed a steady income; they had worked for the Third Reich to protect Jews; they were secretly in the resistance; they looked like loyal Nazis on the outside but hated Hitler on the inside. In the Interior Ministry’s culture department, researchers found that 43% of reviewed employees had concealed incriminating elements. They found no evidence that anyone was disciplined for lying.

Which brings us to Trump’s America.

America in 2026 and West Germany in the early postwar years are very different. The German democracy was just getting started; American democracy has existed for 250 years. Still, it would be a mistake to dismiss the German experience as offering no lessons. In the early 1950s, there was no certainty that the new German democracy would take root. In Trump’s America, there is no certainty that democracy will endure in the form we have known.

West Germany was still reeling from the war in the 1950s. A top priority of the victorious allies was capturing and punishing Nazi perpetrators — through the Nuremberg trials, denazification, and the imprisonment of thousands of soldiers and Nazi officials. But the populace rebelled against what they called “victors’ justice,” placing massive political pressure on Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The United States and West Germany struck an unspoken bargain: suspending the pursuit of war criminals in exchange for Adenauer’s alignment with the United States and NATO in their emerging Cold War confrontation with the Soviet bloc.

Backing away from punishing Germans for the crimes of the Third Reich may have been a factor in the new democracy’s eventual success. But it came at a price. Adenauer was certainly no Nazi, but he was not above employing tactics reminiscent of those of the old regime — including using the foreign intelligence service to spy on his political opponents. And while an untold number of Germans complicit in Nazi abuses were able to resume their lives without consequence, including postwar civil servants who concealed their Third Reich misdeeds during the hiring process, their victims and victims’ families were never given the justice they deserved.

There will be a post-Trump era, but we have no idea what it will look like. What is clear is that calls for accountability are already accumulating — for corruption, for intimidating federal judges, for using the Justice Department to pursue Trump’s political enemies, for obstructing congressional oversight, and for violating migrants’ due-process rights in his sweeping deportation campaign, among other alleged abuses. The question is not whether a reckoning will be demanded, but how it might be pursued.

Like West Germany in its formative years, America will face difficult choices: whom to punish, how they should be punished, and how to keep the coming reckoning from deepening fractures within the country rather than healing them.

The post What we get wrong about how Germany has reckoned with its Nazi past appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel Warns Citizens in UAE to Keep Low Profile Amid Iranian Drone, Missile Strikes

Smoke billows from Zayed port after an Iranian attack, following United States and Israel strikes on Iran, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, March 1, 2026. Picture taken with phone. Photo: REUTERS/Abdelhadi Ramahi

Israel’s National Security Council has urged Israelis in the United Arab Emirates to exercise extreme caution as Iran continues its campaign of drone and missile attacks across the country and broader Gulf region, warning that their safety could be directly at risk.

Jews and Israelis living in the UAE are being advised to avoid public events, synagogues, Israeli-linked businesses, and unnecessary gatherings, including at airports, unless holding a valid flight ticket.

Israeli authorities also instructed employees of companies linked to Israel to stay away from offices and facilities for their own safety.

As flights to and from the UAE remain unpredictable, travelers are strongly advised to avoid itineraries with layovers in the country.

The Israeli government confirmed that supplementary flights bringing Israelis home from the UAE are expected to conclude by Sunday, March 15.

As the war escalates, Iran is continuing to attack neighboring countries and regional interests of the US and Israel, launching waves of drones and missiles that have struck Gulf states, hit critical infrastructure, and forced heightened security measures across the Middle East.

While the US-Israeli campaign has destroyed much of Iran’s military capabilities, thereby reducing their rate of missile fire, launches are still occurring.

Iran has launched more than 1,800 drones and missiles at the UAE since the war began two weeks ago, the latter’s defense ministry said on Friday. While most of the projectiles have been stopped by interceptors and other defensive measures, six people have been killed and 141 have been injured, in addition to significant damage.

In an interview on Friday, UAE Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh urged Iran to cease its attacks on neighboring countries if it seeks a negotiated end to the conflict.

“Ultimately, it will be a diplomatic solution, but there needs to be that tipping point moment, and I think that [US President Donald Trump] will lead us all to that moment in his time,” Nusseibeh said.

“It is difficult to talk about mediation when under attack … Mediation can only happen when the guns go silent,” she continued.

Nusseibeh also expressed that the region was shocked by Iran’s “egregious, illegal, and unlawful attacks” on Gulf nations and Jordan.

According to her, Iranian officials gave no warning that the UAE would be targeted during talks in Tehran two weeks earlier, making the attacks “so shocking and so egregious.”

Iran claims its strikes target the US military presence across the Middle East — including bases in the UAE, Gulf states, Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey — framing them as retaliation for American actions in the region.

However, Iranian drones and missiles have struck key infrastructure, including Dubai Airport, major hotels, and the UAE’s financial hub, sending shockwaves through the region and triggering heightened security alerts across neighboring countries.

The UAE’s top diplomat warned that restoring relations with Iran to their pre‑war status would be nearly impossible, pointing to “the destruction and the chaos that Iran has caused in the region,” as evidence of the deepening regional crisis.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Temple Israel was my home — and what I learned there can help us get through this difficult moment

Temple Israel has long been a staple of the Detroit Jewish community — and in many ways, it has been a cornerstone of my own life. My connection to that synagogue stretches back to my earliest musical memories.

My first voice teacher, in 8th grade, was the wife of Temple Israel’s cantor, Neil Michaels. As a teenager, I sang in their choir, the Teen T’filah Team, where I was first exposed to the music of the Reform movement and where I first experienced the use of instrumentation in services. It was there that I first learned the song Kehilah Kedoshah by Dan Nichols, a piece I now frequently sing with our own East End Temple choir. As a high school student, I even sang alongside the cantors there during High Holiday services. Throughout childhood I remained close with all three of Rabbi Paul Yedwab’s children, as we attended school together, were in theatre together, and travelled to Israel together.

Temple Israel is where my mother studied for her adult bat mitzvah which was officiated by Rabbi Harold Loss. And it was Temple Israel that took me on my first and second trips to Israel — experiences that profoundly changed the trajectory of my life, deepening and reframing my relationship with Judaism, and ultimately inspiring me to devote my life to the Jewish people. I still vividly remember our 2010 Teen Mission to Israel, led by Rabbi Josh Bennett. On that trip, I realized something transformative: that clergy could be more than just symbolic exemplars of a community, but also fun, adventurous, relatable, deeply present in the lives of young people, and powerful influences on their willingness to engage in Jewish life.

That trip had an unquantifiable impact on me. It was on that drive home from the airport that I decided Judaism needed to once again become a more central part of my life. Two weeks later, for my senior year of high school, I made what felt at the time like a radical decision: I transferred from West Bloomfield High School to the Jewish Academy of Metropolitan Detroit (now the Frankel Jewish Academy).

During that year, I began seriously exploring whether I might pursue a career in the cantorate. I arranged an off-campus internship that allowed me to compare and contrast the life and role of the cantor in both the Conservative and Reform movements. Once a week, I studied privately with Cantor Meir Finkelstein at my family’s Conservative congregation, Shaarey Zedek, and another day each week, I studied with Cantor Michael Smolash at Temple Israel. Aside from my internship, my favorite class that year was a course called Denominational Differences, co-taught by rabbis from the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform movements — including two of my own beloved rabbis, Aaron Starr (Shaarey Zedek) and Josh Bennett (Temple Israel). In fact, that very subject eventually became the topic of my master’s thesis in cantorial school.

Needless to say, it is unlikely that I would be standing here today as your cantor were it not for the profound influence that the Metro Detroit Jewish community—and Temple Israel in particular—had on me throughout my childhood.

It is for this reason that yesterday’s news struck me so deeply. Learning of antisemitic attacks in the news is always painful and disturbing. Yet, as the frequency of these attacks across the globe becomes evermore pervasive, it’s difficult not to become slightly jaded or emotionally hardened — a natural coping mechanism to deal with ongoing trauma. People are not meant to live in a state of perpetual anxiety and hypervigilance.

But yesterday’s attack on Temple Israel shook me to my core. It is impossible not to experience antisemitism differently when it touches your own community. Realizing that one of my childhood synagogues was the target of a terrorist attack feels surreal. We know intellectually that terrible things happen in the world — but we rarely expect them to happen to us. We must, therefore, remain forever mindful that tragedy is always personal to someone.

Even amid this frightening event, I am profoundly grateful for the brave security personnel at Temple Israel — especially their director of security, Danny — who quite literally put his life on the line to protect everyone inside the building, including the 106 preschool children and teachers who were in class at the time. We pray for the swift and complete physical and emotional healing of those officers, and we hold them in our hearts. It is truly miraculous that no civilians were injured during this attack. And the outpouring of support from the broader Metro Detroit community has been extraordinary — especially from our non-Jewish friends and neighbors who did not hesitate to help in our time of need.

We are particularly grateful to the Chaldean (Iraqi-Christian) community who opened their homes and businesses to shelter those fleeing the scene. The Chaldean-owned Shenandoah country club, museum, and cultural center across the street immediately welcomed and protected those seeking refuge. The fact that Shenandoah — the largest Chaldean community center in the United States — stands directly across the street from Temple Israel — the largest Reform synagogue in the United States — is no coincidence. It reflects the deep personal and communal ties between our communities.

When I was a student there, West Bloomfield High School was comprised of roughly one-third Jewish and one-fifth Chaldean students. Our communities shared classrooms, neighborhoods, friendships — and often cultural similarities. Both Jews and Chaldeans are Middle Eastern peoples whose identities weave together religion, culture, and ancestry. Both communities carry histories shaped by persecution and resilience. Both place profound emphasis on family, education, and tradition. In fact, back home I became somewhat known as the Chaldean community’s Jewish wedding singer, singing at numerous Chaldean churches as the bride walked down the aisle.

In moments like this, we see those shared bonds revealed in the most powerful of ways. I have no doubt that from this tragic incident something meaningful will emerge: our communities will grow stronger, more resilient, more deeply connected, and even more outspokenly proud of our identities. Hatred seeks to isolate and intimidate, but solidarity, courage, and compassion remind us that we are never alone. When neighbors protect neighbors, when communities stand together in the face of fear, we transform even the darkest moments into opportunities for unity, strength and hope.

Olivia Brodsky is the cantor and co-clergy of East End Temple in Manhattan.

The post Temple Israel was my home — and what I learned there can help us get through this difficult moment appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News