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
Trump Says ‘Good Chance’ of Iran Nuclear Deal After Delaying Strike
US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on the White House campus in Washington, DC, US, May 18, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
US President Donald Trump said on Monday there was a “very good chance” the United States could reach an agreement with Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, hours after saying he had postponed a planned military attack to allow negotiations to continue.
“There seems to be a very good chance that they can work something out. If we can do that without bombing the hell out of them, I would be very happy,” Trump told reporters gathered for a drug price announcement.
Earlier in the day, Trump said he had paused a planned attack against Iran to allow for negotiations to take place on a deal to end the US-Israeli war, after Iran sent a new peace proposal to Washington.
Trump said he had instructed the US military that “we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached.”
No such attack had previously been announced, and Reuters could not determine whether preparations had been made for strikes that would mark a renewal of the war Trump started in late February.
Under pressure to reach an accord that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has previously expressed hope that a deal was close on ending the war, and similarly threatened heavy strikes on Iran if Tehran does not reach a deal.
In his post, he said the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had requested that he hold off on the attack because “a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond.” He did not offer details of the agreement being discussed.
Trump’s post came after Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed that Tehran’s views had been “conveyed to the American side through Pakistan” but gave no details.
A Pakistani source confirmed that Islamabad, which has conveyed messages between the sides in the war in the Middle East since hosting the only round of peace talks last month, had shared the latest proposal with Washington. But the source suggested progress had been difficult.
The sides “keep changing their goalposts,” the Pakistani source said, adding: “We don’t have much time.”
IRAN REMAINS DEFIANT
Iran remained defiant in statements issued on state media after Trump’s announcement, warning the US and its allies against making any further “strategic mistakes or miscalculations” in attacking Iran, while contending the Iranian armed forces were “more prepared and stronger than in the past.”
Iran‘s top joint military command, Khatam al-Anbiya, said Iran‘s armed forces are “ready to pull the trigger” in the event of any renewed US attack, according to Iran‘s Tasnim news agency.
“Any renewed aggression and invasion … will be responded to quickly, decisively, powerfully, and extensively,” the commander of Khatam al-Anbiya, Ali Abdollahi, was quoted as saying.
The Iranian peace proposal, as described by a senior Iranian source, appeared similar in many respects to Iran‘s previous offer, which Trump rejected last week as “garbage.”
It would focus first on securing an end to the war, reopening the Strait of Hormuz – a major oil supply route that Iran has effectively blockaded – and lifting maritime sanctions.
APPARENT SOFTENING BY WASHINGTON
Contentious issues around Iran‘s nuclear program and uranium enrichment would be deferred to later rounds of talks, the source said.
However, in an apparent softening of Washington’s stance, the senior Iranian source said on Monday that the United States had agreed to release a quarter of Iran‘s frozen funds – totaling tens of billions of dollars – held in foreign banks. Iran wants all the assets released.
The Iranian source also said Washington had shown more flexibility in agreeing to let Iran continue some peaceful nuclear activity under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The US has not confirmed that it has agreed to anything in the talks.
Iran‘s Tasnim news agency separately quoted an unidentified source as saying the US had agreed to waive oil sanctions on Iran while negotiations were under way.
Iranian officials did not immediately comment on Tasnim’s report, which a US official, who declined to be named, said was false.
A fragile ceasefire is in place after six weeks of war that followed US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, although drones have been launched from Iraq towards Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, apparently by Iran and its allies. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Monday condemning a drone attack on Sunday, in which Saudi Arabia said it had intercepted three drones that entered the country from Iraqi airspace.
Uncategorized
Israeli flag attack ad prompts antisemitism charge in PA state race — yet boosts the Jewish candidate
Bradley Merkl-Gump, a former middle school social studies teacher and school board member running for Pennsylvania state senate in Tuesday’s primary, is seeking a state job that has little to do with global politics.
Yet voters received campaign mail plastered with an Israeli flag, portraying him as the candidate of an “Israel first” political machine.
The mail, paid for by the Protecting Our Democracy PAC, casts Merkl-Gump as the “hand-picked candidate of the corporate, Israel-first Democratic party boss and insiders” and a “party boss and special interest puppet.” It pictures him in the company of Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who is a stalwart Israel ally, and — embellished with the Israeli flag — Steve Santarsiero, a Jewish Democratic state senator from a neighboring district who endorsed Merkl-Gump.
Santarsiero, who converted and has a Jewish family, has twice introduced legislation to withhold funding from any Pennsylvania colleges that divest from Israel, but he is a relative moderate on Israel: He has also said he does “not support either Benjamin Netanyahu or his right-wing government,” and does “support the creation of a Palestinian state.”
Merkl-Gump took to Instagram earlier this month to condemn the flyers, accusing the PAC of “targeting his Jewish faith” and declaring “This has gone too far.” He has also has hinted at concerns about the anti-divestment resolution, saying in a recent debate: “We should never be preventing any institution in this state from using its free speech.”
He did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
Complicating the picture: the candidate Protecting Our Democracy PAC is promoting in the mailer, Lehigh County Controller Mark Pinsley, is Jewish.
He is also a vocal voice criticizing Israel. The flyer notes that Pinsley “spoke out against Netanyahu’s war crimes.” Like many in his Democratic Party, Pinsley has called Israel’s military campaign in Gaza a genocide.
Pinsley says he sees the mail as pushback on Israel-related policy rather than animus toward Jews.
“To me, it looks like a sharp criticism of a specific vote on a specific bill,” Pinsley said in an interview with the Forward, referring to Santarsiero’s anti-BDS legislation.
Pinsley noted that Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who is not Jewish but is one of the most outspoken Democrats in support of Israel, also appears in the flyer.
Still, Pinsley conceded that it was disingenuous to tie Fetterman, Merkl-Gump and Santarsiero together through Israel-related framing.
He also condemned the mail as an example of “dark money and outside groups poisoning our politics.”
But other Jews in the district expressed alarm.
Rabbi Moshe Re’em of Temple Beth El in Allentown, which has many congregants located in the district, said the PAC’s focus on Israel seemed intended to “demonize” and “create a kind of a panic.”
“The country that receives the second largest sum of foreign aid in terms of the military is Egypt, and one can have dual citizenship also with Egypt, but you don’t see anyone targeting Egyptian Americans as prioritizing funds for Egypt over local funding,” Re’Em told the Forward. “You have to really question and wonder if something’s being singled out, the extent to which it’s problematic.”
Stealth game?
Accusations that political candidates are “Israel first” have mushroomed with U.S. involvement in the Iran war and funding for Israel’s defense, invoking claims that Jews and their allies have un-American, pro-Israel dual loyalties. Those charges typically revolve around funding AIPAC, the mega pro-Israel campaign group, and the candidates who have received its support.
But state candidates don’t receive money from AIPAC and have no power over foreign policy. Candidates in the Pennsylvania race have largely focused on local issues like bringing down the cost of housing.
The winner of Tuesday’s primary will face off against Republican state Sen. Jarrett Coleman, who assumed office in 2023, and some in the district suspect that the mailer boosting Pinsley is intended to help Coleman get re-elected by prompting Democrats to elect someone too far to the left to win the general election.
The “Israel first” line of attack against Merkl-Gump may also serve an entirely unrelated interest.
The Protecting Our Democracy PAC has links to the “skill game” industry — games similar to slot machines but involve a higher level of player input, avoiding gambling regulation and taxes.
Public records list Joseph Calla, the owner of game supplier Capital Vending in Mechanicsburg, Pa., who wrote an op-ed in January against a proposed tax on the skill games industry, as the chairperson of the Protecting Our Democracy PAC. Calla declined to comment to the Forward.
Coleman’s campaign has received nearly $400,000 from skill-game executives and has argued that taxing the industry would hurt organizations that rely on revenue from skill games, such as fraternal clubs that serve veterans. Coleman did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
“These guys are just trying to create chaos,” Pinsley said. “It’s unfortunate that politics has turned into such a nasty game.”
The post Israeli flag attack ad prompts antisemitism charge in PA state race — yet boosts the Jewish candidate appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Cornell University Clears President of Wrongdoing After Incident With Anti-Israel Protesters
Cornell University students walk on campus, November 2023. Photo: USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect
Cornell University absolved its president, Michael Kotlikoff, of wrongdoing following an incident in which anti-Israel protesters accused him of lightly impacting a student and an alumnus with his car as they participated in a mob which had surrounded the vehicle to prevent his leaving a parking space.
As seen in viral footage shared on social media and reported in local outlets, Kotlikoff was walking to his car on April 30 when an anti-Zionist group converged on him, demanding a chance to interrogate him about free speech and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kotlikoff resolved to go home, however, telling the group that he would not answer any more questions and asked them to stop recording.
After the protesters refused to comply, Kotlikoff denied the protesters their move to form a blockade around his parking spot, reversing out of it even as the student and alumnus held their positions to hold him still.
All the while, the mob banged on the vehicle, creating what the school described as a sense of imminent danger.
“The actions taken by these individuals on April 30th, which included following President Kotlikoff from an evening event into a parking lot and impeding his ability to leave, are inconsistent with university policies governing expressive activity and our standards for respectful conduct, safety, and the prohibition of intimidation,” the university’s Ad Hoc Special Committee of the Board of Trustees said in a statement on Friday announcing its decision after reviewing the incident. “President Kotlikoff has declined to pursue a complaint against the students involved.”
Noting it considered evidence gathered by the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD), including video footage and a sworn statement from Kotlikoff, the committee said the person at the scene who reported that Kotlikoff’s vehicle had made contact refused treatment from the EMS team and would not provide a sworn statement to CUPD. None of the individuals at the scene gave sworn statements about the incident.
The committee added that “appropriate action” was taken against at least one of Kotlikoff’s “non-student” harassers and called on students to appreciate the importance of “robust debate” and “peaceful protest,” values it extolled Kotlikoff for upholding “over the course of his decades long tenure at Cornell.”
Cornell University is no stranger to radical anti-Zionist activity. In 2023, a history professor there cheered Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel — a cornucopia of evils which included torture and gang rape. That same semester, an ex-student, Patrick Dai, threatened to perpetrate mass murder and sex crimes against Jewish students.
Anti-Zionists activists at Cornell have also heavily featured blood in their political messaging. Last year, they doused a statue in red paint and left behind a graffitied message which said “occupation=death.”
Kotlikoff, whom trustees appointed to the university’s top position in 2024 at the peak of student protests over the Israel-Hamas war, is a veteran of several clashes with the school’s anti-Israel faction.
Having enacted a zero-tolerance disciplinary policy, Kotlikoff has pursued criminal investigations against protesters who break the law, as happened in September 2024 when a mass of them disrupted a career fair because it was attended by defense contractors Boeing and L3Harris. The incident resulted in at least three arrests, and, later, severe sanctions, including classifying five students as “persona non grata,” which, Cornell says, bans from campus “a person who has exhibited behavior which has been deemed detrimental to the university community.”
Anti-Zionist student groups have tried and failed several times to initiate mass demonstrations or make other big moves during these final weeks of the academic year.
At Occidental College in Los Angeles, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) “peacefully” took down an encampment it established in April to protest the institution’s financial ties to Israel after school officials rushed to the scene to take names and issue disciplinary referrals, deterring others joining in.
At Smith College in Massachusetts, SJP activists last month were granted a meeting with high-level officials at a later date in exchange for the group’s ending an unauthorized encampment established on campus to protest the board of trustees’ decision to reject a proposal inspired by the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.