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
Federal Officials Dig in on Minneapolis Shooting Narrative Despite Video Evidence
A person reacts at a makeshift memorial at the site where a man identified as Alex Pretti was fatally shot by federal immigration agents trying to detain him, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S., January 25, 2026. REUTERS/Tim Evans
Senior Trump administration officials on Sunday defended the fatal shooting of a US citizen by immigration agents in Minneapolis even as video evidence contradicted their version of events and tensions grew between local law enforcement and federal officers.
As residents visited a makeshift shrine of flowers and candles in frigid temperatures and snow to mark Saturday’s fatal shooting of Alex Pretti — the second shooting death by federal officers in Minneapolis this month — the Trump administration argued that Pretti assaulted officers, compelling them to fire in self-defense.
Gregory Bovino, Border Patrol commander-at-large speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” could not offer evidence that Pretti was trying to impede a law enforcement operation, but focused on the fact that the ICU nurse was carrying a gun, which he had a license to carry.
“The victims are border patrol agents,” Bovino said. “Law enforcement doesn’t assault anyone.”
Bovino and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accused Pretti of assaulting the agents, rioting and obstructing them.
“We do know that he came to that scene and impeded a law enforcement operation, which is against federal law,” Noem told Fox News’ “Sunday Briefing” program. “It’s a felony. When he did that, interacting with those agents, when they tried to get him to disengage, he became aggressive and resisted them.”
That official line, echoed by other Trump officials on Sunday, triggered outrage from local law enforcement, many in Minneapolis and Democrats on Capitol Hill, because of bystander videos that appear to show a different version of events.
HOLDING A PHONE, NOT A GUN
Videos from the scene verified and reviewed by Reuters showed Pretti, 37, holding a phone in his hand, not a gun, as he tries to help other protesters who have been pushed to the ground by agents.
As the videos begin, Pretti can be seen filming as a federal agent pushes away one woman and shoves another woman to the ground. Pretti moves between the agent and the women, then raises his left arm to shield himself as the agent pepper sprays him.
Several agents then take hold of Pretti — who struggles with them — and force him onto his hands and knees. As the agents pin down Pretti, someone shouts what sounds like a warning about the presence of a gun.
Video footage then appears to show one of the agents removing a gun from Pretti and stepping away from the group with it.
Moments later, an officer with a handgun pointed at Pretti’s back and fired four shots at him in quick succession. Several more shots can then be heard as another agent appears to fire at Pretti.
Darius Reeves, the former head of ICE’s field office in Baltimore, told Reuters that federal agents’ apparent lack of communication is troubling. “It’s clear no one is communicating to me, based on my observation of how that team responded,” Reeves said.
One of the officers appeared to have taken possession of Pretti’s weapon before he was killed, Reeves said. “The proof to me is how everyone scatters,” he said. “They’re looking around, trying to figure out where the shots came from.”
‘VIDEOS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES’
Brian O’Hara, the Minneapolis police chief, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “the videos speak for themselves,” adding the Trump administration version of events was “deeply disturbing.” He said he had seen no evidence that Pretti brandished a gun.
Tensions in the city were already running high after a federal agent fatally shot US citizen Renee Good on Jan 7. Trump officials claim she was trying to ram the agent with her car, but other observers have argued that bystander video suggests she was trying to steer away from the officer who shot her.
Federal authorities have refused to allow local officials to participate in their investigation of the incident.
US Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, told ABC News’ “This Week” that Trump’s surge of federal agents into Minneapolis was “completely out of control and out of balance,” and that they should leave Minnesota. She described the shooting of Pretti as “simply horrific.”
The deaths of Good and Pretti have sparked large protests in the Democrat-run city, although on Sunday morning the area where Pretti was shot was calm.
A woman wearing nursing scrubs ventured out in Sunday’s frigid temperatures to pay homage to Pretti, who she said worked with her. When asked what brought her out, the woman began to sob.
“He was caring and he was kind. None of this makes any sense,” said the woman, who asked not to be identified by name, saying she feared retribution from the federal government.
In addition to large protests in Minneapolis since Good’s death, there have been rallies in other cities led by Democratic politicians, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., since Trump began sending immigration agents and National Guard troops to those communities last year.
Trump has defended the operations as necessary to reduce crime and enforce immigration laws.
Pretti’s shooting triggered legal filings on Saturday night from state and local officials, as well as others.
A US district judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting federal officials from destroying or altering evidence related to the shooting in response to a lawsuit filed by Minnesota’s attorney general, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. A full hearing is set for Monday.
Lawyers representing protesters in Minnesota also asked an appeals court to reinstate a lower court’s order that prevented violent retaliation by federal agents against protesters, citing Pretti’s death and the likelihood of a surge of people taking to the streets.
Uncategorized
Iran Health Officials Say Death Toll Far Exceeds Official Figures During Protests
Cars burn in a street during a protest over the collapse of the currency’s value, in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 8, 2026. Photo: Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
i24 News – Senior sources inside Iran’s Ministry of Health have told the American publication TIME that an internal government tally shows as many as 30,000 people may have been killed in Iran on January 8 and 9 alone, far exceeding the official death toll announced by the authorities. According to the report, the figure is based on accounts from two unnamed senior Health Ministry officials and could not be independently verified.
The officials said the scale of the killings by Iranian security services during those two days overwhelmed state systems. Stocks of body bags were depleted, the officials said, and eighteen-wheel semi-trailers were used in place of ambulances to transport bodies.
According to the report, the internal government count has not been previously revealed and far exceeds the figure of 3,117 deaths announced on January 21 by Iranian authorities and state media aligned with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. TIME noted that Iran’s ministries, including the Health Ministry, formally report to the country’s elected president.
The reported internal figure also surpasses counts being compiled by independent activists documenting fatalities by name. As of Saturday, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said it had confirmed 5,459 deaths and was investigating an additional 17,031 cases.
The two Health Ministry officials described the internal tally as reflecting only a portion of the broader unrest, highlighting January 8 and 9 as particularly deadly. The report mentioned the deaths cited occurred “in the streets of Iran,” underscoring the intensity of those two days. Iranian authorities have not publicly commented on the internal figures cited by TIME.
Uncategorized
UN Rights Body Censures Iran’s ‘Brutal Repression’ of Protests
Members of the UN Security Council meet on Iran at the request of the United States at U.N. headquarters in New York City, US, January 15, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
The U.N. rights body condemned Iran on Friday for rights abuses and mandated an investigation into a recent crackdown on anti-government protests that killed thousands of people.
“I call on the Iranian authorities to reconsider, to pull back, and to end their brutal repression,” High Commissioner Volker Turk told an emergency session of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, voicing concerns for detainees.
The council passed a motion extending a previous inquiry set up in 2022 so U.N. investigators could also document the latest unrest “for potential future legal proceedings.”
Rights groups say bystanders were among those killed during the biggest crackdown since Shi’ite Muslim clerics took power in the 1979 revolution. Tehran has blamed “terrorists and rioters” backed by exiled opponents and foreign foes the US and Israel.
Iran’s mission decried the rights council’s “politicized” resolution and rejected external interference, saying in a statement it had its own independent and robust accountability mechanisms to investigate “the root causes of recent events.”
Twenty-five states including France, Mexico and South Korea voted in favor, while seven including China and India voted against and 14 abstained.
“This is the worst mass murder in the contemporary history of Iran,” Payam Akhavan, a former U.N. prosecutor of Iranian-Canadian nationality, told the meeting. He called for a “Nuremberg moment”, referring to the international criminal trials of Nazi leaders following World War Two.
Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, told the Council its emergency session was invalid and gave Tehran’s tally of some 3,000 people killed in the unrest.
One Iranian official, however, has told Reuters that at least 5,000 people, including 500 members of the security forces, had been killed.
The U.S.-based HRANA rights group said it has so far verified 4,519 unrest-linked deaths and had 9,049 additional deaths under review.
China, Pakistan, Cuba and Ethiopia also questioned the utility of the rights session, with Beijing’s ambassador Jia Guide calling the unrest in Iran “a matter of internal affairs”.
It was unclear who would cover the costs of the extended U.N. inquiry amid a funding crisis that has stalled other probes.