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
JD Vance blames Israel and Iran war for GOP’s crushing defeats
(JTA) — Vice President JD Vance blamed the Republican Party’s massive midterm losses on the country’s connection to Israel and the war in Iran in a social media post early on Wednesday.
“The real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone,” Vance wrote on X, as results from Tuesday’s midterm elections showed that Democrats had wrested control of Congress from his Republican Party.
The vice president then listed four strategies to persuade those voters who abandoned the GOP “to come back to our team”: end the war in Iran; focus on the cost of living and inflation; put America first and “Change our relationship to Israel.”
“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance added, referring to interviews President Donald Trump gave on Tuesday about the influence of the war on gas prices.
Addressing the defeats, Trump told Fox News that “a part of it was Iran,” while also doubling down on the importance of the war itself. Similarly, he told The Wall Street Journal that “Iran was a piece of it.”
The president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr., backed Vance’s statement with a re-post on Wednesday, simply adding: “Every word of this is 100 100 100.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post JD Vance blames Israel and Iran war for GOP’s crushing defeats appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
People used to have guests over often. Why do so few of us do that anymore?
אין אַן אַרטיקל לעצטנס אינעם זשורנאַל „די אַטלאַנטיק“ האָט מען איבערגעגעבן, אַז אינעם יאָר 1975 האָבן בערך 42 פּראָצענט אַמעריקאַנער געזאָגט, אַז צום ווייניקסטן איין מאָל אַ חודש נעמען זיי אויף געסט (פֿרײַנד אָדער קרובֿים) אויף אַ מאָלצײַט בײַ זיך אין שטוב.
אין 2026 איז עס אָבער געווען בלויז 12 פּראָצענט — אַ ירידה פֿון בערך 70 פּראָצענט.
די פֿאָרשער האָבן דעם פֿענאָמען אַ נאָמען געגעבן „די גרויסע ירידה פֿון הכנסת־אורחים“ (The Great Disinvitation בלע״ז). דער נאָמען פּאַסט טאַקע ווײַל אָט די ירידה פֿון אויפֿנעמען געסט איז נישט בלויז וואָך שייך דעם פֿאַרבעטן מענטשן אויף אַ מאָלצײַט. אַ סך געזעלשאַפֿטלעכע אַקטיוויטעטן וואָס זענען אַ מאָל געווען אַזוי פֿאַרשפּרייט זענען אַ פּנים „אַרויס פֿון דער מאָדע, צי דאָס איז אַרויסגיין עסן מיט פֿרײַנד, שפּילן קאָרטן, גיין אויף אַ פּיקניק, הערן אַ קלאַס, טאָן פֿרײַוויליקע אַרבעט, גיין אין שענק אָדער אויף אַ זיצונג פֿון אַ קלוב. מיט אַנדערע ווערטער, אַזוי ווייניק מענטשן באַטייליקן זיך אין די אַקטיוויטעטן, אַז מע באַטראַכט זיי ווי סתּם חנעוודיקע מנהגים פֿון אַ פֿאַרגאַנגענער תּקופֿה, נישט מער ווי אַ קוריאָז.
פֿאַר וואָס איז דאָס געשען? ערשטנס, איז דאָס לעבן אין דער היים געוואָרן זייער באַקוועם, אַזוי אַז ס׳גלוסט זיך נישט אַרויסצוגיין. צווייטנס, ניצט מען אויס יענע שעהען וואָס מע פֿלעג אויפֿנעמען געסט צו אַרבעטן מער. דריטנס, ווען מע זעט כּסדר אויף דער סאָציאַלער מעדיאַ (בפֿרט אינסטאַגראַם) פֿאָטאָגראַפֿיעס פֿון פּרעכטיקע עסצימערן, וווּ אַלץ אויפֿן טיש זעט אויס פּערפֿעקט, און דער סאַלאָן איז שיין אויסגעסדרט און קרישטאָל־ריין, פֿילן זיך מענטשן אַז זיי קענען נישט דערגרייכן אַזאַ הויכן סטאַנדאַרט און באַשליסן דערפֿאַר נישט צו פֿאַרבעטן מענטשן צו זיך.
די סדרה פֿון דער פֿאַרגאַנגענער וואָך, וירא, ווײַזט אונדז אַ בולטן קאָנטראַסט. אַבֿהרם אָבֿינו, וואָס איז אַלט 99 יאָר אַלט און האָט ערשט געהאַט דורכגעמאַכט אַ שטיקל „כירורגיע“ (זײַן ברית־מילה), זיצט בײַם אַרײַנגאַנג פֿון זײַן געצעלט אין דער הייסטער צײַט פֿון טאָג, ווען דרײַ פֿרעמדע באַווײַזן זיך פֿון דער ווײַטנס.
הגם אַבֿרהם האָט אַ גוטן תּירוץ צו בלײַבן בײַם געצעלט, הייבט ער זיך אויף, לויפֿט צו צו די דרײַ פֿרעמדע לײַט און הייבט אָן צוגרייטן אַ סעודה פֿאַר זיי. ער הייסט שׁרהן תּיכּף אָפּבאַקן ברויט און באַפֿעלט זײַן דינער אויסקלײַבן דאָס בעסטע קעלבל פֿון זייער טשאַדע כּדי צו מאַכן אַ געשמאַק הויפּטגעריכט.
מיט אַנדערע ווערטער, אַבֿרהם אָרגאַניזירט אַ סעודה וואָס קיינער האָט נישט פּלאַנירט, לטובֿת מענטשן וואָס ער קען בכלל נישט. ס׳איז זייער מעגלעך אַז דאָס געצעלט איז בײַ אים געווען אָנגעוואָרפֿן מיט זאַכן אָבער דאָס האָט אים נישט געאַרט. דערצו האָבן די געסט געדאַרפֿט וואַרטן עטלעכע שעה אויף דער מאָלצײַט (דער פּראָצעס פֿון באַקן ברויט קאָן דויערן 5 שעה), און דאָס עסן איז אפֿשר נישט געווען אויסערגעוויינטלעך. מיר דאַכט זיך אָבער, אַז דאָס איז דער עיקר פֿון דער מעשׂה.
דאָס אויפֿנעמען געסט איז אָפֿט נישט באַקוועם און פֿאָדערט אַ סך מי.
אין יענע צײַטן איז דאָס געווען אַן אמתע האָרעוואַניע. מע האָט געדאַרפֿט שעכטן די חיות, שעפּן וואַסער פֿון ברונעם, צעמאָלן דאָס מעל און באַקן אַלץ פֿריש. הײַנט איז דאָס אויפֿנעמען געסט גרינגער צוליב אַלע טעכנאָלאָגישע דערגרייכונגען אָבער מע דאַרף פֿאָרט אַרײַנלייגן אַ היפּשע אַרבעט: מע דאַרף קאָכן, קאָאָרדינירן אונדזערע קאַלענדאַרן, גיין אײַנקויפֿן, ראַמען, קאָנטראָלירן צי איינער פֿון די געסט האָט אַן אַלערגיע, און מע דאַרף נעמען אין באַטראַכט די באַדערפֿענישן פֿון קליינע קינדער.
סײַ אין אַבֿרהמס צײַטן סײַ אין אונדזערע, ווערן אָט די גשמיותדיקע צוגרייטונגען לטובֿת הכנסת־אורחים פֿאַרוואַנדלט אין מעשׂים פֿון אמתן חסד.
די תּורה זאָגט אונדז, אַז גאָט האָט געהאַלטן אין מיטן רעדן מיט אַבֿרהמען ווען די געסט זענען אָנגעקומען און ווי עס זעט אויס האָט אַבֿרהם ממש איבערגעריסן זײַן שמועס מיטן אייבערשטן, כּדי צו באַדינען די געסט — אַ זאַך וואָס האָט דערפֿירט צום איבערראַשנדיקן אויספֿיר בײַ חז״ל: אַז הכנסת־אורחים איז נאָך חשובֿער ווי דאָס זײַן אין דער שכינה אַליין.
אַ מדרש גיט צו אַן אינטערעסאַנטע אָבסערוואַציע: ווען עס דערנענטערן זיך די דרײַ פֿרעמדע (וואָס זענען אין דער אמתן דרײַ מאכלים), שטייט געשריבן אַז זיי „שטייען איבער“ אַבֿרהמען, אָבער בײַם סוף פֿונעם מאָלצײַט, „שטייט ער איבער זיי“. דאָס הייסט, בײַם אָנהייב האָבן די דרײַ געסט זיך געפֿילט גײַסטיק העכער פֿון אַבֿרהמען, אָבער ביזן סוף פֿון זייער באַזוך האָבן זיי אײַנגעזען אַז אָט דער קראַנקער זקן מיט דער אָפֿענער טיר, וואָס זײַן הויזגעזינד מאַכט פֿריש ברויט לכּבֿוד זײַנע געסט, האָט דערגרייכט אַ נאָך העכערע מדרגה ווי זיי.
מיר לייענען ווי די דרײַ מאכלים פֿאַרלאָזן אַבֿרהמס געצעלט און קומען אָן אין סדום, וווּ זיי טרעפֿן אַ גאָר אַנדער מין געזעלשאַפֿט: אַנשטאָט חסד און גאַסטפֿרײַנטלעכקייט ווײַזן די אײַנוווינער פֿון סדום אַרויס רציחה און אַכזריותדיקייט צו פֿרעמדע. אין סדום איז די שׂינאה פֿאַר פֿרעמדע לײַט געווען ממש אײַנגעגלידערט אין זייער סאָציאַלער סיסטעם.
ווען לוט, וואָס האָט זיך באַזעצט אין סדום, נעמט אויף צוויי פֿון די דרײַ געסט וואָס זענען פֿריִער געווען בײַ אַבֿרהמען, זאַמלט זיך אָן בײַ זײַן טיר אַ המון אָרטיקע אײַנוווינער, פֿאָדערנדיק אַז ער זאָל דערלאַנגען די געסט צו זיי. וויסנדיק אַז די סדומער וועלן די געסט ברוטאַל אַטאַקירן, זאָגט ער זיך אָפּ פֿון אַרויסלאָזן די געסט. כאָטש ער טוט דערנאָך עפּעס, וואָס איז פּונקט אַזוי שאָקירנדיק און אַכזריותדיק (ער שיקט אַרויס זײַנע אייגענע טעכטער אַנשטאָט די געסט), איז קלאָר אַז ער האָט געפּרווט פֿאָלגן די פּרינציפּן פֿון הכנסת־אורחים, וואָס ער האָט זיך אָפּגעלערנט פֿון זײַן פֿעטער אַבֿרהם.
מע קען אַוודאי נישט פֿאַרגלײַכן דעם אוממענטשלעכן אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די סדומער מיט אונדזער געזעלשאַפֿט. די ירידה פֿון הכנסת־אורחים איז אָבער אַ סימן אַז מיר שאַנעווען נישט די טראַדיציע פֿון אויפֿנעמען געסט אַזוי ווי אַמאָל. מיר פֿילן זיך באַקוועמער צו בלײַבן פֿיזיש אָפּגעזינדערט פֿון אַנדערע. דורך אַבֿרהמס גאַסטפֿרײַנדלעכקייט ווײַזט אונדז די תּורה וואָסערע נסים קענען פֿאָרקומען ווען מע פֿאַרבעט געסט צו זיך אַהיים: אַן אַלטיטשקע פּאָרפֿאָלק וואָס האָט שוין אויפֿגעגעבן די האָפֿענונג אַז זיי וועלן האָבן קינדער, דערוויסט זיך אַז זיי וועלן טאַקע האָבן אַ זון.
ווען מיר פֿאַרבעטן מענטשן אַהיים אויף אַ מאָלצײַט קענען אויך פֿאָרקומען אַנדערע וויכטיקע זאַכן: אַ גאַסט וואָס האָט נישט קיין שטעלע קען געפֿינען אַרבעט. צוויי געסט קענען זיך פֿאַרליבן און דערנאָך חתונה האָבן.
די תּורה לערנט אונדז אַז מיר זאָלן עפֿענען אונדזערע היימען, אַפֿילו אויב ס׳איז אונדז שווער. און נאָך מער: מיר זאָלן עס טאָן דווקא ווי אַ דוגמא פֿון אַ מיצווה, וואָס איז שווער דורכצופֿירן אָבער ברענגט צונויף מענטשן. און מיר אַלע קענען דאָס טאָן. זאָרגט זיך נישט אויב אײַער היים איז נישט אַזוי שיין ווי די בילדער, וואָס איר זעט אויף אינסטאַגראַם. ווען מיר ווערן פֿאַרבעטן צו יענעם אַהיים געדענקען ס׳רובֿ פֿון אונדז נישט צי די סערוועטקעס האָבן זיך טאַקע געפּאַסט מיטן טישטעך. מיר געדענקען אָבער יאָ ווי אַזוי מיר האָבן זיך געפֿילט ווי געסט, וויסנדיק אַז עמעצער וויל פֿאַרברענגען מיט אונדז.
בײַ די פֿראַנצויזן איז דאָ אַן אַלטער מינהג: ווען מע שטאַרבט, באַערדיקט מען דעם מת אין אַן אָרון געמאַכט פֿונעם האָלץ פֿון זײַן עסטיש. דער סימבאָליזם דערפֿון איז קלאָר: נאָך דעם ווי מיר פֿאַרלאָזן די וועלט, טראַכטן ווייניק מענטשן וויפֿל געלט מיר האָבן געהאַט אָדער ווי באַרימט מיר זענען געווען. אַ סך מער געדענקט מען ווי אַזוי מיר האָבן אויפֿגענומען געסט: די איבעריקע בענקלעך, וואָס מיר האָבן אַרויסגעשלעפּט פֿון דער שאַפֿע; די טישטעכער וואָס מיר האָבן אָפּגעוואַשן, און ואַחרון אַחרון חבֿיבֿ — אונדזער שמייכל בײַם עפֿענען די טיר.
דער אַרטיקל איז איבערגעזעצט געוואָרן פֿון ענגליש.
The post People used to have guests over often. Why do so few of us do that anymore? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
6 Jewish takeaways from the midterm elections
(JTA) — The sheer size and geographic scope of the Republican wipeout Tuesday makes it hard to read anything definitive into the results beyond a nationwide repudiation of President Donald Trump (and his candidate selections). But whether or not any other factors were at play in the GOP bloodbath, the fallout will have a range of reverberations. Here are 6 takeaways that point to what comes next.
1. A significantly weakened Donald Trump doesn’t bode well for Netanyahu
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump has been a longshot bet that keeps on paying off. It’s hard to overstate how significant Trump’s improbable wins in 2016 and 2024 were in bolstering Netanyahu’s domestic standing and giving him space to advance his regional agenda. Trump also served as a security blanket, leaving Netanyahu and his allies with a sense for many years that they need not worry too much about skyrocketing Democratic and international anger with Israel.
In fact, there was even a hope in Bibi world that The Donald’s support could save Netanyahu from political defeat at home (and, to be fair, his 11th-hour endorsement may have). Whether Netanyahu holds on or chief rival Gadi Eisenkot succeeds in replacing him, Israel is entering uncharted territory. There is little chance that the combination of a weakened Trump and an emboldened Democratic Congress produces similar levels of support for aggressive action against Iran and its proxies, and other policies that a wide spectrum of Israelis see as crucial to their security.
2. Jeffries and Schumer have a massive headache coming their way
With Tuesday night’s Democratic wave, Hakeem Jeffries is on track to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chuck Schumer will likely get a second shot as U.S. Senate Majority Leader. These New Yorkers have longstanding ties to the pro-Israel community and are among their party’s strongest Israel supporters – putting them at odds with the growing number of congressional Democrats who want their party to take a much harder line against Israel. It won’t be long before members in each caucus are demanding concrete action, including meaningful limits on U.S. military sales.
Both Democratic leaders have ratcheted up their criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government in the wake of its war on Hamas in Gaza, but they have ultimately voted against various legislative attempts to punish Israel. This past April, Schumer was one of only seven Senate Democrats to vote against a pair of resolutions that together would have blocked the sale of D-9 bulldozers, widely used in military operations, and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel. In July, Jeffries voted against ending U.S. military aid to Israel, but the measure was supported by almost half of the Democratic caucus. As leaders of their respective chambers, Jeffries and Schumer will likely face immense pressure for more such votes and face much tougher scrutiny from the party base over continued support for Israel.
3. The impact of the anti-Israel vote was diluted
On the other hand, the massive Democratic victory dilutes the power of the anti-Israel lawmakers in Congress. Their numbers will grow, causing problems for party leaders trying to keep anti-Israel measures off the agenda. But they will remain a relatively small subset within a much larger Democratic majority that includes many moderates and Israel supporters.
Not only will anti-Israel members have less ability to hold Congress hostage, the overall issue of Israel loses some of its potency when the broader political winds indicate that all Democrats were boosted.
4. John Fetterman just lost his juice
Just as the sizable Democratic House majority makes Jeffries less dependent on anti-Israel lawmakers in his caucus, the next Senate Majority Leader won’t need to rely on Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman. For years, Fetterman has been driving fellow Democrats crazy with his cozying up to Republicans, with progressives especially upset over his die-hard support for Israel. Fetterman has even said that the one thing that could cause him to leave the Democratic Senate caucus would be his party turning decisively against Israel.
Had things broken differently, with Democrats grabbing a narrow 51-49 majority in the chamber, Fetterman’s influence would have been hypercharged. Now, not so much. The Democrats no longer need him to keep control of the chamber. So Schumer, should he regain the majority leader role, will have to worry much less about keeping the party’s top pro-Israel cheerleader happy. In 2028, he’ll be up for reelection and highly unlikely to survive the Democratic primary.
5. AIPAC has not found a formula for success
A few years back, the leading pro-Israel lobby decided the best way to counter the initial anti-Israel rumblings in Congress was to jump deep into the campaign fundraising business. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, the number of Israel critics in Congress – especially on the Democratic side of the aisle – has grown, with a fresh batch on the way. Moreover, in many races, anti-Israel candidates and AIPAC critics managed to turn the lobby’s backing into a liability.
Meanwhile, Trump’s seemingly impromptu announcement Tuesday that his administration would end aid to Israel after this year suggests that Republican backing for such support is dropping alongside Democrats’. And Tuesday’s results suggest AIPAC’s strong support for the U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran is out of step with the American public and many incoming lawmakers.
All of this indicates that AIPAC has yet to figure out how to manage the anti-Israel turn sweeping through American politics.
6. It was a great night for Jewish presidential hopefuls
U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff says he isn’t running for president in 2028. But that won’t stop the speculation from skyrocketing after his impressive reelection in Georgia – Georgia?! – with nearly 60% of the vote. More importantly, he probably just grabbed frontrunner status in the race to become America’s first Jewish president. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also registered a similarly sized reelection victory in a state that Trump won just two years ago, but Ossoff – a fierce Trump antagonist and, increasingly, a critic of Israel’s military actions – cemented his rock star status among Democrats this cycle and has demonstrated an ability to bridge the gap between younger progressives and more traditional liberals.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also cruised to reelection. Meanwhile in Michigan, moderate Elissa Slotkin – another senator and likely presidential hopeful (of course, which senator isn’t a presidential hopeful?) – may have at least propped open the door to some progressive support by campaigning hard for Abdul El-Sayed. All four have been highly critical of Netanyahu, with both Ossoff and Slotkin joining most of their fellow Democratic senators in voting in April for a curb on various weapons sales. Both senators have declined to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post 6 Jewish takeaways from the midterm elections appeared first on The Forward.
