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.
Uncategorized
Michigan’s El-Sayed doubles down: Israel ‘not an ally’
(JTA) — Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan, is doubling down on his view that Israel is not a U.S. ally as the Nov. 3 midterm elections draw closer.
El-Sayed, a vocal critic of Israel who faces former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers in one of the country’s most competitive Senate races, told ABC News on Monday that Israel is “not actually our friend.”
“An ally that takes your money to push you into wars you shouldn’t be fighting is not an ally,” said El-Sayed, referencing Israel’s reported lobbying of the United States to enter into a war with Iran.
He compared Israel with a friend who “keeps bumming off [your kid’s] money” and “talks about them behind their back and then gets them into fights with other friends.”
“What would you tell your kid to do with that friend? You’d probably tell them, maybe it’s not actually your friend,” he said.
El-Sayed made similar remarks in an interview with MS NOW on Thursday, saying that “the government of Israel has done nothing but use us” and “has done terrible things with our money.”
He added that he would continue to question whether Israel was an ally regardless of the outcome of Israel’s election on Oct. 27, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has served as Israel’s leader for most of the past 18 years, seeks another term.
“Netanyahu is one part of it, but the Israeli military has done heinous things, like heinous things, full war crimes, genocide,” said El-Sayed. “So I think we got to just get serious about whether or not we as a country should be subsidizing that government.”
El-Sayed previously affirmed that he does not consider Israel an ally to the United States in his first bitter debate with Rogers on Oct. 8. The candidates will meet for a final debate on Wednesday.
He told MS NOW that he was “committed to the safety and security” of Jewish voters, some of whom have pressured him to moderate his views on Israel. “Now, we may have differences when it comes to Israel, but the things that unite us are a lot bigger,” he said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Michigan’s El-Sayed doubles down: Israel ‘not an ally’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump endorsement of Netanyahu blasted by liberal policy advocates, Democrats
(JTA) — A day after President Donald Trump endorsed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israeli election eight days from now, U.S. policy analysts, Democratic lawmakers and liberal advocacy groups slammed the decision.
Trump announced his support for Netanyahu, who is running for reelection, in a Sunday Truth Social post that described the Israeli leader as “a Great Warrior Prime Minister” and a critical partner in eliminating the Iranian threat. Netanyahu has been trailing former IDF chief-of-staff Gadi Eisenkot in recent surveys.
Tali deGroot, vice president of political and digital strategy for the liberal Zionist group J Street, described Trump’s declaration as “an endorsement of endless war for Israelis,” in a statement sent to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. She warned of “endless occupation and control of Palestinian life and land, and Israel’s growing isolation on the world stage.”
“The president is once again acting against the wishes of American taxpayers and choosing to uphold a failed, unpopular foreign policy that has brought devastation to Israelis, Palestinians and countless civilians,” deGroot added.
A spokesperson for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, meanwhile, said that the lobby had no comment about the endorsement.
David Makovsky, director of the Program on Arab-Israel Relations at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, criticized Trump’s decision, writing on X that “in one fell swoop, Trump has broken with the longstanding U.S. practice of avoiding explicit endorsements in Israeli elections.” The president, Makovsky added, went a step further by threatening to sever a partnership against Iran if Israelis choose a different leader.
“It is up to the Israeli people to choose their own leader and threatening that the U.S. will walk away from the conflict with Iran is beyond stunning,” Makovksy said.
Makovsky also pointed out that “a Trump endorsement is no electoral guarantee,” noting that Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s support for Viktor Orbán in Hungary did not end in a victory.
“The ultimate test is assembling a 61-seat Knesset majority,” Makovsky added. “Yet Netanyahu appears more focused on preventing an Eisenkot-led coalition from reaching that threshold than on demonstrating a viable path to 61 seats himself.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, offered another scathing perspective, observing that “authoritarians of a feather flock together.”
“They started a war together,” Van Hollen stated. “They crack down on press freedom together. They lie about everything together.”
Rep. Analilia Mejia, a New Jersey Democrat running for reelection, said that the endorsement “tells us everything we need to know about both of these men.” She then went on to list Netanyahu, North Korea leader Kim Jong Un, Orbán and Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding that “this guy has a ‘type.’”
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Carlos Gimenez, a Republican from Florida, reposted a video in which Netanyahu thanked Trump for his support. The congressman then added that “America will always stand with the Jewish State of Israel and our dear friend Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has championed our alliance for decades.”
Matt Brooks, CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said he believes that “President Trump is incredibly popular with the people of Israel,” in a written statement to JTA.
“His support will carry considerable weight as Israelis make their choice for Prime Minister in a pivotal election this month,” Brooks added.
American Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach likewise celebrated the endorsement “by our great President Trump,” writing on X that he has “known and loved BIBI Netanyahu for some 35 years.”
Conservative radio personality Mark Levin described Trump’s Truth Social post as “an extraordinarily strong statement,” while accusing the opposition of “barking about election interference.”
“Trump makes clear it’s also in our national security interest for Netanyahu to remain PM,” Levin stated, calling complaints “unserious and a partisan political whine.”
Conservative influencer Evan Kilgore, on the other hand, fumed at Trump’s decision. Kilgore, whose X profile says “Christ is King,” announced that he is “so done with the GOP,” following Trump’s endorsement of Netanyahu. Kilgore described Trump as “TOTALLY fu*king subverted by Jewish and Zionist interests.”
Political analysts are divided as to whether Trump’s official support would have any sway on the results of an election 6,000 miles away.
Joyce Karam, editor-in-chief of the Washington-based site Al-Monitor, described the endorsement as a signal to both Israel and Iran that renewed escalation and a push for regime collapse could occur after the U.S. midterm elections. She also predicted that Trump’s backing could tip the balance in a tight race where neither side holds a majority.
However, Dov Waxman, director of the Israel Studies program at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed doubt that support from Trump, who has become less popular in Israel, could significantly influence Netanyahu’s election chances.
“For a long time, most polls have shown his bloc falling well short of a parliamentary majority,” Waxman added.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump endorsement of Netanyahu blasted by liberal policy advocates, Democrats appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Macklemore’s ‘Free Palestine’ tour will benefit group that called Oct. 7 a ‘prison break’
(JTA) — Macklemore, the rapper of hits such as “Thrift Shop” and “Can’t Hold Us,” is facing backlash from Jewish organizations over plans to donate proceeds from his forthcoming concert tour to the Palestinian Youth Movement, which described the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel as a “prison break.”
The rapper was dropped on Sept. 14 from an opening slot on Ed Sheeran’s U.S. stadium tour after making pro-Palestinian remarks onstage. He announced his “Free Palestine” tour on Sept. 24, pledging that all proceeds would benefit organizations supporting Palestinians. PYM is among 12 organizations named as beneficiaries.
The tour includes concerts in Dublin on Oct. 26, Paris on Oct. 29 and London on Oct. 30.
Macklemore received a surge of support after being dropped from Sheeran’s tour, with all of Sheeran’s remaining opening acts quitting in solidarity. He said on Instagram that the “Free Palestine” tour “sold out immediately.”
PYM is a grassroots movement of Palestinian and Arab youth in the United States, Canada and Britain. On Oct. 7, 2024, the first anniversary of the Hamas attacks, the group described the assault as a “prison break” and called the fighters “the men who broke through” in an essay published in The New Inquiry.
“Those fighters had trained for months, and now found themselves stepping foot onto the same hills and plains that their grandfathers and grandmothers had lived upon,” said PYM, without mentioning the killing and abduction of Israeli civilians.
PYM also said a week after the attacks, “Understand Palestinian resistance as fundamentally just and as a means of survival for our people; it will not stop in the weeks and months to come, and you must be prepared not to waver again.”
Jewish and pro-Israel groups have slammed Macklemore for supporting PYM. The Jewish Leadership Council, which represents British Jewish and pro-Israel groups, told The Jewish Chronicle, “When the PYM describes the 7 October massacre as a ‘prison break’, it risks legitimizing violence against Jews.”
The Israeli-American Council, which petitioned Sheeran to drop Macklemore, told Fox News Digital that “Live Nation and the concert organizers must now publicly explain their vetting process and ensure that concert proceeds do not benefit organizations that justify violence against innocent civilians.”
Macklemore, Live Nation and the Palestinian Youth Movement did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Macklemore’s ‘Free Palestine’ tour will benefit group that called Oct. 7 a ‘prison break’ appeared first on The Forward.
