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
Two Argentine Jewish Tourists Assaulted in Milan as Antisemitic Incidents Surge Across Italy
A protester uses a pole to break a window at Milano Centrale railway station, during a demonstration that is part of a nationwide “Let’s Block Everything” protest in solidarity with Gaza, with activists also calling for a halt to arms shipments to Israel, in Milan, Italy, Sept. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Claudia Greco
Two young Argentine Jewish tourists were violently assaulted in Milan by a group of North African migrants after being targeted for wearing kippahs, in one of the latest antisemitic attacks amid a relentlessly hostile climate toward Jewish communities across Europe.
According to Italian media reports, the two 19-year-old Argentine tourists were attacked late Sunday night outside a 24-hour supermarket in Milan, a city in the northern part of the country, at Piazzale Siena after leaving the store when a group of about 10 people approached them.
After spotting the kippahs worn by the two young men, the attackers began shouting antisemitic insults, including “f**king Jews,” before violently assaulting them, leaving one of the victims with a broken nose.
Authorities and emergency responders were quickly dispatched to the scene following the attack, with police and paramedics providing assistance before transporting the two victims to a local hospital.
Local law enforcement has now opened a criminal investigation into the assault, reviewing surveillance camera footage and analyzing cell phone data from areas surrounding Piazzale Siena.
The European Jewish Congress (EJC) strongly condemned the incident, describing it as a sign of rising antisemitic hostility and calling for renewed efforts to safeguard Jewish communities across Europe.
“This disturbing incident highlights the very real dangers Jews continue to face in public spaces across Europe simply for expressing their identity. Antisemitic violence must be confronted with the utmost seriousness,” EJC said in a statement.
“Authorities must ensure that those responsible are swiftly identified and brought to justice. No one in Europe should fear being attacked for being visibly Jewish,” it continued.
Two young Jewish tourists from Argentina were violently assaulted outside a supermarket in Milan after being identified as Jewish by their kippahs.
The attackers first hurled antisemitic insults before punching the victims, leaving one with a broken nose.
This disturbing… pic.twitter.com/Ch0IzlgWt4
— European Jewish Congress (@eurojewcong) March 4, 2026
Amid heightened tensions tied to the recent US-Israeli joint military campaign against Iran, Walker Meghnagi — president of the Jewish community of Milan — called on authorities to strengthen protection for Jewish schools and synagogues.
“We must remain vigilant. We have asked the prefect to increase surveillance around our schools and places of worship, as well as to safeguard our freedoms, but we cannot isolate ourselves,” he said.
“We are Italians and deserve to be respected as such. We are a free people, and we will not hide — we must stand firm in defense of our freedom,” Meghnagi continued.
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, Italy has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to newly published figures, antisemitism in Italy surged to record levels in 2025, reflecting a broader climate in which Jews and Israelis across Europe have faced harassment, vandalism, and targeted violence.
In Italy, the Milan-based CDEC Foundation (Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation) confirmed that antisemitic incidents in the country almost reached four digits for the first time last year.
Of 1,492 reports submitted through official monitoring channels, the CDEC formally classified a record high 963 cases as antisemitic, according to the EJC and Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI), the main representative body of Jews in Italy.
By comparison, there were 877 recorded incidents in 2024, preceded by 453 such outrages in 2023 and just 241 in 2022.
Uncategorized
New York Judge Overturns Disciplinary Sanctions for Columbia University Students Who Occupied Hamilton Hall
Protesters gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall, in New York City, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
A New York state judge has overturn disciplinary sanctions imposed on a group of anti-Israel protesters who illegally occupied Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall and interned janitorial staff while destroying property to protest the Israel-Hamas war, raising concerns that colleges may be deprived of the power to punish severe misconduct perpetrated by students who claim to be advancing progressive causes.
Twenty-two current and former students, all of whom contested their punishments anonymously, may soon walk away without being held accountable following Judge Gerald Lebovits’s ruling last Friday that Columbia’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious.” Lebovits went further, citing the students’ concealment of their identities with masks and keffiyeh scarves as evidence that the university lacked evidence to determine that they were actually in Hamilton Hall despite that they had been arrested on the scene by the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
“In the disciplinary proceedings against the 22 Columbia students, the sole evidence that they were present in Hamilton Hall during its occupation was a report reflecting that petitioners had been arrested,” he wrote. “No evidence was offered in the disciplinary proceedings of actions taken inside Hamilton Hall by any particular student, as opposed to the conduct of the group of occupiers as a whole.”
Lebovits, after arguing that the group should not be disciplined even as he described their infractions, then argued that illegally occupying Hamilton Hall is “decades-long tradition.”
He continued, “Others might see the occupiers’ actions as manifestations of an ugly hatred against Jews, using rhetoric about Gaza mainly as a pretext. But the task for this court is not to decide between these perspectives, or to opine on the moral or political issues implicated by the actions of the parties to this proceeding.”
In a statement shared with The Algemeiner on Wednesday, Columbia University noted that Lebovits’s vacating the disciplinary sanctions does not take effect for 30 days, during which time university lawyers may pursue other legal avenues.
“The order does not take effect for at least 30 days, and no student who was disciplined for the occupation of Hamilton Hall can return to campus at this time,” a university spokesperson said. “Columbia is considering all of its options, including seeking a stay of the order and appealing the decision.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, in April 2024, anti-Israel agitators occupied Hamilton Hall, forcing then-university president Minouche Shafik to call on the NYPD for help, a decision she hesitated to make. During a search of the scene, the NYPD found a number of disturbing items, including “gas masks, ear plugs, helmets, goggles, tape, hammers, knives, ropes, and a book on TERRORISM [sic].” Police also found signs which said “death to America” and “death to Israel.”
During the same period, a group that calls itself “Columbia University Apartheid Divest” (CUAD) commandeered a section of campus and, after declaring it a “liberated zone,” lit flares and chanted pro-Hamas and anti-American slogans, according to numerous reports. When the NYPD arrived to disperse the unauthorized gathering, hundreds of students reportedly amassed around them to prevent the restoration of order.
“Yes, we’re all Hamas, pig!” one protester was filmed screaming during the fracas, which saw some verbal skirmishes between pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist partisans. “Long live Hamas!” said others who filmed themselves dancing and praising the al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian terrorist organization.
Beyond the occupation of school property, Columbia has produced some of the most indelible examples of antisemitism, pro-jihadist sentiment, and extreme anti-Zionism in American higher education since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023. Such incidents include a student who proclaimed that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and administrative officials who, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, participated in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes that described Jews as privileged and grafting.
In July, interim then-university president Claire Shipman said the institution would hire new coordinators to oversee antisemitism complaints alleging civil rights violations; facilitate “deeper education on antisemitism” by creating new training programs for students, faculty, and staff; and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — a tool that advocates say is necessary for identifying what constitutes antisemitic conduct and speech.
Shipman also announced new partnerships with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other Jewish groups while delivering a major blow to the anti-Zionist movement on campus by vowing never to “recognize or meet with” the infamous organization CUAD, which had serially disrupted academic life with a number of other unauthorized, surprise demonstrations attended by non-students.
However, Columbia University has retained a professor, Joseph Massad, who celebrated Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel — where the Palestinian terrorist group sexually assaulted women and men, kidnapped the elderly, and murdered children in their beds — allowing him to teach a course on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Speaking to The Algemeiner in January, Middle East expert and executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Asaf Romirowsky said that Massad’s remaining on Columbia’s payroll is indicative of the university’s hesitance to enact meaningful and lasting reforms.
“Joseph Massad is a notorious tenured antisemite who has spent his career at Columbia bashing Israel and Zionism, a poster child for BDS and a scholar propagandist activist. Furthermore, he has shown his true colors time and time again defending Hamas and calling the 10/7 barbaric attack on Israel ‘awesome,’” Romirowsky said.
Noting that Columbia’s own antisemitism task force said in a December report that the institution employs few faculty who hold moderate views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he added, “By allowing Massad to continue teaching and spreading his venom, Columbia is only codifying the dearth of knowledge as it relates to the Middle East. It should take the finding of the report and act upon it by getting rid of the tenured radicals they allowed to hijack the institution.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
California Governor Gavin Newsom Likens Israel to ‘Apartheid State’
California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at a press conference, accompanied by members of the Texas Democratic legislators, at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, California, US, Aug. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday ignited controversy after suggesting it is “appropriate” to describe Israel as an “apartheid state” and questioning the future of US military assistance to the Jewish state during an event to promote his new memoir.
Speaking during a book event in Los Angeles with “Pod Save America” host Tommy Vietor, Newsom said that recent policies pursued by Israel’s current government have made the term increasingly common in international discourse. While framing his comments as reluctant, the Democratic governor said it “breaks my heart,” but argued that the trajectory of Israeli leadership leaves the United States with “no choice” but to reconsider aspects of its longstanding support such as providing military aid.
“I mean, Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately – sort of an apartheid state,” Newsom said in reference to New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman.
“It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice but to have that consideration,” Newsom said.
The remarks place Newsom among the most high-profile American elected officials to publicly entertain the apartheid label — a characterization Israel has consistently rejected as false and inflammatory. Israeli officials across the political spectrum have long argued that such comparisons distort the complex security, legal, and historical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while ignoring the equal rights afforded to Israel’s Arab citizens and the ongoing security threats facing the country.
Newsom reportedly directed much of his criticism at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, describing its policies in the West Bank and toward Palestinians as contributing to growing international unease. His comments come amid continued tensions in the region, including the future prospect of Israeli military operations against Hamas in Gaza and ongoing military conflict with Iran and its regional proxies.
Newsom also directed criticism toward the current war in Iran, accusing Jerusalem of pushing the White House to pursue military conflict with Tehran. The California governor suggested that Israel should not be trusted to lead a successful campaign against Iran, given Jerusalem’s failure to topple Hamas in Gaza. He also suggested that Netanyahu bamboozled US President Donald Trump into pursuing a war against Iran.
“They couldn’t even – I mean, we’re talking about regime change?” he said, “For two years, they haven’t even been able to solve the Hamas question in Israel. So, this is, I mean, you know, I wanna be careful here, but, you know, in so many ways, that influence in the context of the conversation of where Trump ultimately landed on this is pretty damn self-evident.”
Trump was asked at the White House if Israel dragged the US into conflict with Iran and rejected the notion.
“I might have forced their [Israel’s] hand,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.”
In Jerusalem, officials have frequently pushed back against the apartheid accusation, noting that Israel is a multiethnic democracy with an independent judiciary, free press, and Arab representation in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. Critics of the apartheid claim also point to the repeated rejections by Palestinian leadership of past peace proposals that would have established a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Newsom’s statements arrive at a sensitive moment in US-Israel relations. As the 2028 Democratic primary begins to set in motion, progressive voices within the Democratic Party have increasingly called for conditioning or reducing military aid to Israel. Newsom, widely viewed as a potential contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, now appears to be navigating that internal party divide.
In a recent podcast appearance with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Newsom rejected the argument that Israel has committed a so-called “genocide” in Gaza and expressed support for the country’s right to defend itself from Hamas terrorism.
Netanyahu has said in several interviews over the past few months that he intends to “taper off” Israeli dependence on US military aid in the next decade.