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
Itamar Ben-Gvir draws criticism from Netanyahu for video taunting detained flotilla activists
(JTA) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has joined a chorus of Israelis and Jews denouncing his national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, for posting a video that showed Ben-Gvir taunting detained activists from a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that had been intercepted by the Israeli navy.
“Welcome to Israel, we are the masters,” Ben-Gvir said in the video as he waved a large Israeli flag above the detained activists, who could be seen blindfolded and kneeling on the ground with their hands behind their backs.
Roughly 430 activists that took part in the Global Sumud Flotilla, which set sail from Turkey last Thursday, were brought to the city of Ashdod aboard Israeli naval ships on Wednesday, marking the latest in a long-running series of confrontations between Israel and activists seeking to break its naval blockade of Gaza.
In a second video posted on social media, Ben-Gvir said that the activists “came here all full of pride like big heroes. Look at them now,” appealing to Netanyahu to grant him permission to imprison them.
ככה אנחנו מקבלים את תומכי הטרור
Welcome to Israel 🇮🇱 pic.twitter.com/7Hf8cAg7fC
— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) May 20, 2026
Netanyahu said in a statement that he had instructed authorities to deport the activists “as soon as possible.” But he also offered a public rebuke of Ben-Gvir.
“Israel has every right to prevent provocative flotillas of Hamas terrorist supporters from entering our territorial waters and reaching Gaza,” Netanyahu said. “However, the way that Minister Ben Gvir dealt with the flotilla activists is not in line with Israel’s values and norms.”
The foreign ministers of several countries, including Canada, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Italy, also condemned the videos and summoned their Israeli diplomats to answer for the display.
But some of the sharpest criticism came from within Israel, where Ben-Gvir plays a crucial role in maintaining the governing coalition while also engaging in antics that threaten to flare tensions and undercut the country’s claims that it behaves in accordance with international law.
Ben-Gvir is “not the face of Israel,” tweeted Foreign Minister Gideon Saar in English.
“You knowingly caused harm to our State in this disgraceful display — and not for the first time,” Saar wrote. “You have undone tremendous, professional, and successful efforts made by so many people — from IDF soldiers to Foreign Ministry staff and many others.”
Ben-Gvir’s videos come as his antics and rhetoric have drawn new scrutiny in recent days. Last week, he departed from longstanding norms and waved an Israeli flag on the Temple Mount, a Muslim holy site, in a show of Jewish supremacy. His oversight of Israeli prisons, where he has said he wants to see prisoners given only the minimum of food and comfort as required by law, also drew attention because of a New York Times column alleging sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners.
Progressive groups heavily criticized Ben-Gvir’s video, saying that it was inappropriate for him to be part of the Israeli government.
“The disgusting images of Israel’s National Security Minister abusing detainees from the Gaza flotilla are not just bad optics,” tweeted Mickey Gitzin, the acting CEO of the New Israel Fund. “A government that gives a Kahanist this kind of power has already abandoned any notion of decency. These grotesque images are the real face of current Israeli policy.”
Ben-Gvir’s videos showing the treatment of participants in the latest flotilla offered a contrast to other recent interceptions in which Israel has released footage appearing to show activists being treated without force. When past arrestees from flotillas have alleged abusive treatment, Israel has denied it.
The organizers of the Global Sumud Flotilla said all of its boats had been intercepted by Israel by Tuesday evening, accusing Israel of employing “illegal, high-seas aggression.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry said no live munition was used during the operation, which it said was necessary because it will “not permit any breach of the lawful naval blockade on Gaza.”
Among the activists aboard the more than 50 boats in the flotilla was the sister of Irish President Catherine Connolly. On Tuesday, Connolly, who was elected in October and has a record of anti-Israel rhetoric, called the detention of Irish activists aboard the flotilla “unacceptable.”
The post Itamar Ben-Gvir draws criticism from Netanyahu for video taunting detained flotilla activists appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
What Tuesday’s primaries tell us about Democrats, Republicans and the Israel issue
(JTA) — Reading the polls and listening to conservative podcasts, you would understandably think that Republicans are souring on Israel and poised to start voting like Democrats on the issue. At least a little. But the congressional primary results Tuesday in Philadelphia and northern Kentucky tell a more nuanced story (at least for now).
Chris Rabb’s win in the Democratic primary for a congressional seat representing sections of Philadelphia reinforced the view that staunch anti-Israelism is arguably the most potent force in Democratic politics today. The Pennsylvania state representative executed the progressive playbook perfected by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, showing how tough talk on Israel and AIPAC can galvanize the party’s left-wing base.
In Mamdani’s case, however, he was running against several candidates with strong pro-Israel records and deep pro-Israel support – for a position that has long served as a key public cheerleader for Israel in the United States. Rabb, on the other hand, proved that the strategy can be the winning ticket in a race ostensibly having nothing to do with Israel or AIPAC.
Unlike the New York mayor’s race, Tuesday’s primary in Philadelphia consisted of candidates with similar views on affordability issues, while Rabb’s opponents weren’t exactly waiving the pro-Israel flag or raking in major pro-Israel dollars. But, to borrow from 1964 GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, for an increasing swath of Democratic voters (and D.C. lawmakers), when it comes to standing up for the Palestinians and rejecting U.S. support for Israel, extremism is no vice and moderation is no virtue.
On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie’s flameout in the GOP race for Kentucky’s 4th District suggests that while there may be a gathering storm of discontent over Israel, the main force that matters when it comes to the ballot box remains Donald J. Trump.
Massie tried his best to make his race a referendum on Israel and the influence of pro-Israel money, rather than Trump’s decision to go all in for challenger Ed Gallrein. It didn’t work.
“I’m walking to an airplane to rejoin the most expensive congressional race in U.S. history. It’s turned into a referendum on whether Israel gets to buy seats in Congress,” Massie said a few days before an election that saw record spending by groups both supportive and critical of the Jewish state. After Massie’s defeat, he quipped: “I would have come out sooner but I had to call my opponent to concede and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”
Despite such rhetoric, the biggest reason Massie will be leaving Congress in January is that Trump wanted him gone – in part over his criticism of the Iran war, but more generally over a range of issues that the Kentucky lawmaker has broken with Trump on. A string of other Republican primary results suggest that the first rule of GOP politics is: If Trump wants you out, you’re cooked – even without a dollar of pro-Israel money going to your opponent.
In his concession speech, Massie lamented that most GOP voters seem to want somebody who will “go along to get along.” But, he added, one group – young voters – stayed with him.
Unfortunately for Massie, the GOP for the time being belongs to Trump and his loyal followers, not the growing number of young conservatives who want an end to U.S. support for Israel. On the bright side for Massie and his fans, they already hold the power in at least one key area. As one popular pro-Trump conservative social media poster put it: “Don’t think of it as losing a Congressman. Think of it as gaining a podcaster.”
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.
The post What Tuesday’s primaries tell us about Democrats, Republicans and the Israel issue appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
AOC and other leading Democrats condemn Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo over antisemitic rhetoric
(JTA) — Rabbi Mara Nathan says watching an antisemitic conspiracy theorist emerge as a serious contender for a U.S. House seat in her Texas district has been “very disorienting.”
Nathan lives and works in San Antonio, where Maureen Galindo, a local activist who has vowed to turn a local immigrant detention center “into a prison for American Zionists,” was the top vote-getter in a Democratic primary in March and now faces a runoff on Tuesday.
“It seems shocking that someone who is so virulently antisemitic and anti-Zionist has not only been given a voice, but is even now in this primary runoff,” Nathan, the senior rabbi of Temple Beth El, a 150-year-old Reform congregation, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Galindo’s extreme rhetoric has drawn national attention as the runoff in Texas’ 35th Congressional District nears — and increasingly has also drawn condemnation from other Democrats, including some who are themselves critical of Israel and its supporters in the United States.
Last week, the Texas Senate candidate James Talarico revealed to JTA that he would not back or campaign with Galindo if she wins the runoff against sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive leader who has been strongly critical of Israel, threw her support behind Garcia in a post on X Tuesday, calling Galindo’s rhetoric “absolutely disgusting.”
“This bigoted garbage and antisemitism should be nowhere near our politics. If you’re in TX-35, vote for @johnnygarciatx,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Also on Tuesday, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Washington Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene issued a joint statement condemning Galindo’s rhetoric, writing that the “vile language by her is disqualifying and has no place in American politics, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.”
The two Democratic leaders also accused Republican leadership of propping up Galindo in the race through the newly launched Lead Left PAC, which has spent nearly $600,000 on ads and mailers bashing Garcia and boosting Galindo.
While the PAC has not had to disclose its donors, the metadata on its website previously linked it to WinRed, a Republican donation platform, according to a Punchbowl News report. Ocasio-Cortez made the connection in her statement, saying, “The donors behind the Republican super PAC funding her should be exposed.”
Jeffries and DelBene called on Republican leadership to “immediately cease propping up this antisemitic candidacy, pull spending in the race and forcefully condemn these comments,” adding that “MAGA extremists should be ashamed of themselves.”
In a statement to The New York Times regarding funding for a mailer supporting her candidacy, Galindo suggested that the funds had come from “a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates.”
“Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money,” Galindo told The Times.
Galindo, WinRed and the National Republican Congressional Committee did not immediately respond to JTA requests for comment, and attempts to reach Lead Left PAC and the Republican National Committee were not successful.
The head of Democratic Majority For Israel, Brian Romick, whose organization has launched a new six-figure ad campaign backing Garcia, also took aim at Lead Left PAC’s spending on Galindo in a statement, calling on Republicans to “explain why they’re paying to keep her viable.”
“Republicans aren’t doing this by accident,” Romick said. “They are deliberately elevating one of the most grotesque antisemites in American politics this cycle because they think it helps them win.”
Several Jewish Democrats, including Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Jared Moskowitz of Florida, also decried Galindo’s rhetoric. In a joint statement Wednesday, Gottheimer and Moskowitz said that, if Galindo wins the election, they would force votes to expel her from Congress “every single day we are here.”
The Jewish Federation of San Antonio did not immediately respond to a request for comment from JTA. But the federation appeared to weigh in on Galindo’s remarks in a post on Facebook last week, calling on “candidates and elected officials” to “refrain from bigoted and offensive attacks.”
The widespread condemnation has reassured Nathan that opposition to Galindo’s rhetoric extends across the Democratic party.
“It is heartening that those folks who are clearly no fan of Israel understand that you can be critical of a government without saying you’re going to put Jewish people in internment camps,” Nathan said.
Nathan said she hoped the growing attention surrounding the race would help Texans “wake up and step up for a more sane perspective in how one is going to lead our community.”
“On both sides of the aisle, what we need is for both our elected officials and people who are running to speak out against that kind of antisemitic rhetoric,” Nathan said. “Beyond the political position, the idea that you want to attack any faith or any religion, any race is really abhorrent and goes against American values and certainly Texan values.”
The post AOC and other leading Democrats condemn Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo over antisemitic rhetoric appeared first on The Forward.