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
How to face life’s difficulties with total confidence
ווי אַזוי קען מען זיך באַוואָרענען פֿון ווערן פּאַראַליזירט ווען מען שטייט פֿאַר אַ סיטואַציע וואָס זעט אויס ווי אַ געפֿאַר?
דער ענטפֿער איז זייער פּשוט: מען דאַרף באַטראַכטן די סיטואַציע ווי אַ פֿאַרמעסט, אַנשטאָט ווי אַ באַדראָונג.
אָבער ווי אַזוי קען מען דערגרייכן אַזאַ ענדערונג פֿונעם קוקווינקל, אַז אַנשטאָט זיך צו פֿילן דערדריקט און אַנטמוטיקט, זאָל מען זיך פֿילן געשטאַרקט און מאָטיווירט?
צו דעם דאַרף מען צוויי זאַכן: ערשטנס, זיך פֿאָרשטעלן דעם רעזולטאַט וואָס מען וועט האָבן ווען מען וועט איבערקומען די שוועריקייט, און צווייטנס, זיך געהעריק צוגרייטן, כּדי צו קענען מצליח זײַן אין איבערקומען די אַרויספֿאָדערונגען.
אין דער פּרשה די וואָך, ויצא, לייענען מיר ווי יעקבֿ אָבינו איז אַרויס פֿון זײַן טאַטנס הויז אין באר־שבֿע, און זיך געלאָזט אין וועג קיין חרן, צום הויז פֿון זײַן זיידן פֿון דער מאַמעס צד, בתואל. ער האָט דאָס געמוזט טאָן ווײַל ער האָט געוווּסט אַז זײַן ברודער עשׂו וויל אים הרגענען. יעקבֿ, נישט עשׂו, האָט דאָך באַקומען די ברכות פֿון זייער טאַטן יצחק.
ס׳איז אָבער דאָ אַ צווייטע סיבה פֿאַר יעקבֿס נסיעה. ער האָט געדאַרפֿט זוכן אַ שידוך, ווײַל זײַנע עלטערן זענען נישט געווען צופֿרידן מיטן אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די פֿרויען און מיידלעך אין כּנען.
לאָמיר זיך אַרײַנשטעלן אין זײַן מצבֿ. דאָס לעבן אין באר־שבֿע איז פֿאַר יעקבֿן געווען רויִק און באַקוועם. ער האָט געוווינט בײַ זײַנע עלטערן; זײַענדיק אַ בחור האָט ער ניט געהאַט קיין באַזונדערע דאגות, און האָט געקענט זיך אָפּגעבן מיט לימוד התּורה און פּערזענלעכער אַנטוויקלונג. און פּלוצלינג, האָט ער געמוזט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון דעם באַקוועמען און באַשיצטן מצבֿ, און זיך אַרויסלאָזן אויף אַ וועג צו אַן אָרט וואָס איז געווען פֿול מיט שוועריקייטן און סכּנות.
חז״ל דערקלערן אַז דער נאָמען פֿון דעם שטאָט חרן, וווּהין ער איז געגאַנגען, איז פֿאַרבונדן מיטן וואָרט „חרון אף“, וואָס מיינט כּעס, ווײַל דער אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די אײַנוווינער האָט אַרויסגערופֿן דעם כּעס פֿונעם אויבערשטן.
דערצו איז זײַן פֿעטער לבֿן, וואָס האָט געוווינט מיט בתואל, געווען באַרימט מיט זײַן אומערלעכקייט.
קענען מיר זיך פֿאָרשטעלן אַ גרעסערן קאָנטראַסט צווישן דער רויִקייט פֿון זײַן היימישער סבֿיבֿה און דעם שווערן מצבֿ וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט אין זײַן נײַעם אָרט?
אָן קיין ספֿק האָט ער מסתּמא געפֿילט אַנגסטן, אומזיכערקייט און הילפֿלאָזיקייט.
די תּורה באַשרײַבט ווי יעקבֿ האָט אויפֿן וועג זיך אָפּגעשטעלט דאַווענען, און ווי ער האָט גענומען שטיינער כּדי זיך צו באַשיצן פֿון ווילדע חיות בשעת ער האָט זיך געלייגט שלאָפֿן אויפֿן וועג.
אין זײַן חלום האָט יעקבֿ געזען אַ לייטער וואָס איז געשטאַנען אויף דער ערד, און זײַן שפּיץ האָט דערגרייכט ביזן הימל. ער האָט געזען מלאכים אַרויפֿגיין און אַראָפּגיין אויפֿן לייטער.
דער אייבערשטער האָט צו אים גערעדט און צוגעזאָגט אים צו באַשיצן. ער האָט איבערגעחזרט זײַן הבֿטחה צו געבן זײַנע קינדער דאָס לאַנד אויף וועלכן ער איז געלעגן. דערצו האָט ער אים געבענטשט מיט אַ גרויסער און חשובֿער נאָכקומערשאַפֿט, סײַ אין כּמות און סײַ אין איכות.
ווען יעקבֿ האָט זיך אויפֿגעוועקט פֿון זײַן חלום, האָט ער געמאַכט אַ נדר: אויב דער אויבערשטער וועט אים באַגלייטן, אים געבן ברויט צו עסן און קליידער אָנצוטאָן, און ער וועט קענען צוריקקומען צום הויז פֿון זײַן טאַטן מיט זײַן רוחניותדיקער און מאָראַלישער שלימות, וועט ער אויפֿשטעלן אַ הייליקן אָרט לכּבֿוד דעם אויבערשטן און אָפּגעבן מעשר פֿון אַלץ וואָס ער פֿאַרמאָגט. אָפּגעבן מעשׂר — אַוועקגעבן אַ צענטל פֿון דײַן פֿאַרמעגן אויף צדקה — איז אַ גרויסע מיצווה.
גלײַך דערנאָך דערציילט אונדז די תּורה: וַיִּשָּׂא יַעֲקֹב רַגְלָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַרְצָה בְנֵי קֶדֶם. „יעקבֿ האָט אויפֿגעהויבן זײַנע פֿיס און איז געגאַנגען צום לאַנד פֿון די מענטשן אין מזרח.“
רש״י דערקלערט אַז דער אויסערגעוויינטלעכער אויסדרוק, „וישא יעקב רגליו“, ווײַזט אָן אַז יעקבֿס פֿיס זענען געוואָרן אַ סך לײַכטער, ווײַל זײַן האַרץ איז געוואָרן פֿריילעך נאָך דער הבֿטחה פֿון דער געטלעכער שמירה. יעקבֿ האָט נישט געמיינט אַז דאָס וואָס דערוואַרט אים וועט זײַן גרינג. ער האָט אָבער געהאַט בטחון אַז ער וועט מצליח זײַן. מיט אָט דער זיכערקייט האָט ער געפֿילט אַז ער האָט די כּוחות צו קענען בײַשטיין און איבערקומען יעדע שוועריקייט וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט.
די הבֿטחה פֿונעם אויבערשטן אַליין איז אָבער נישט געווען גענוג. ער האָט זיך אויך געדאַרפֿט געהעריק צוגרייטן צו דעם וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט.
דרײַ יסודות פֿון אָט דער צוגרייטונג ווערן אָנגעדײַט אין די דרײַ באַדינגונגען וואָס יעקבֿ האָט דערמאָנט אין זײַן נדר: עסן; קליידער, און צוריקקומען צום טאַטנס הויז אין דעם זעלבן רוחניותדיקן און מאָראַלישן מצבֿ.
אין צוגאָב צו דעם פּשוטן זין, ליגט אין די ווערטער אויך אַ גײַסטישן באַדײַט:
עסן גיט דעם מענטש חיות און גיט אים אַרײַן כּוח. אויף אַ רוחניותדיקן אופֿן ווערט די תּורה פֿאַרגליכן צו עסן, ווײַל דורך לימוד התּורה דערנערט מען זיך אינטעלעקטועל און רוחניותדיק צום אייבערשטן. פּונקט ווי דאָס גשמיותדיקע עסן ווערט פֿאַרדייט און ווערט אַ טייל פֿון דעם מענטש אַליין, און גיט אים חיות און כּוח, אַזוי אויך ווערט די תּורה וואָס מען לערנט אַ טייל פֿון אונדזער אינערלעכן לעבן און גיט אונדז רוחניותדיקע חיות.
קליידער נעמען אַרום דעם מענטש און באַשיצן אים פֿון דרויסנדיקע השפּעות. אַזוי אויך ווען אַ ייִד איז מקיים די מיצוות שאַפֿן זיי, די מיצוות, אַ רוחניותדיקע באַשיצונג פֿונעם מענטשן.
דער לערנונג איז גילטיק אויך פֿאַר אונדז הײַנט.
כּדי צו קענען זיך שטעלן אַנטקעגן די שוועריקייטן פֿון לעבן מיט בטחון און שׂימחה, דאַרף מען זיך צוגרייטן דורך דרײַ זאַכן: ערשטנס, לימוד התּורה — דאָס שטאַרקט אונדז פֿון אינעווייניק און גיט אונדז רוחניותדיקע חיות און כּוחות. צווייטנס, מקיים זײַן די מצוות: דאָס באַשיצט אונדז פֿון דרויסן און גיט אונדז די נויטיקע רוחניותדיקע שמירה, און דריטנס, נישט פֿאַרלירן פֿון די אויגן דעם ענדגילטיקן ציל: דורך אונדזער באַגעגעניש מיט דער גשמיותדיקער וועלט פֿאַרוואַנדלען מיר די וועלט אין אַ „וווינאָרט“ פֿאַרן אויבערשטן, אַ „דירה בתּחתונים“.
דאָס איז דער טיפֿערער באַדײַט פֿון „צוריק קומען צום טאַטנס הויז“: צו ברענגען די גאַנצע וועלט צו אַ מצבֿ וווּ עס ווערט דערקענט אַז זי איז דעם טאַטנס – דעם אויבערשטנס — וווינאָרט. אַז יעדער באַגעגעניש און יעדע פֿאַרבינדונג מיט דער וועלט זאָל אויסדריקן דעם געטלעכן מקור, דעם געטלעכן בײַזײַן און דעם געטלעכן ציל פֿון זיין וועזן.
אַז מען פֿאַרשטייט קלאָר וואָס דער ציל איז, און מען גרייט זיך צו ווי געהעריק, איז מען אין אַ בעסערן צושטאַנד צו קענען אַנטקעגנגיין יעדע שוועריקייט מיט מוט און זיכערקייט.
ווי דער באַרימטער פּסיכיאַטער וויקטאָר פֿראַנקל האָט עס אַזוי שיין און טיפֿזיניק אויסגעדריקט:
„ווער עס האָט אַ ׳פֿאַרוואָס׳ אינעם לעבן, קען איבערקומען כּמעט יעדן ׳ווי אַזוי׳.“
The post How to face life’s difficulties with total confidence appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Boston suburb votes to divest from Israel
(JTA) — SOMERVILLE, Mass. — The City Council in this city north of Boston voted 10-1 Thursday night to ban the municipality from doing business with companies complicit in humanitarian violations, specifically naming those operating in “Israel and Palestine.”
Councilor Kristen Strezo cast the only opposing vote on the 11-member board.
Opponents of the ordinance fear that in execution it would be akin to a boycott of Israel, and as such would create a negative environment for the city’s Jewish and Israeli residents. The ban only involves companies that work with the municipality and does not impact companies that operate privately in Somerville. It also excludes sole proprietors (individuals operating as companies).
Somerville Mayor Jake Wilson’s office said given that the ordinance passed with a veto-proof majority, the measure is now considered final.
The ordinance was originally introduced in June by Councilors Ben Ewen-Campen and Ben Wheeler, after the City Council voted in November 2025 to implement ballot Question 3 on Israel divestment, which had been approved by 55.7% of voters earlier that month. Question 3 spoke of banning businesses that sustain “Israel’s apartheid, genocide, and illegal occupation of Palestine.”
During his campaign in 2025, Wilson did not endorse Question 3.
Nine councilors on Thursday night offered comments in advance of the vote.
Ewen-Campen, who wrote and revised the ordinance along with Wheeler, spoke about the importance of a Massachusetts city passing an ordinance about a country across the world, especially at a time when the federal government has clamped down on pro-Palestinian student protesters, noting two incidents of protesters being detained by ICE allegedly for speaking against Israel.
“I think the reason that people want us to be quiet about it is because when you do talk about it, there is just no way to justify it,” Ewen-Campen said.
“I am not under any illusion that Somerville is going to have some enormous impact on the world [by passing this ordinance], but I do think that all of us collectively deciding to be silent about this does have an impact on the world,” he said. “That is why I think it is worth it to have taken this action, and that is why I have asked for all of your support tonight.”
Strezo invoked the Holocaust to explain why she considered the ban antisemitic, referring to Kristallnacht, the Nov. 9-10, 1938, pogrom against Jews in Germany and Austria.
“A few years before Kristallnacht, the Nazis worked to deter the public from shopping at Jewish businesses,” she said. “Their efforts started in moments like tonight.” On behalf of her Jewish community, Strezo emphasized that the ordinance “makes us feel targeted. It makes us feel unsafe. It makes us feel unwelcome.”
As she spoke, members of the group Somerville for Palestine (S4P), who had gathered outside City Hall for a rally in advance of and throughout the meeting, could be heard through the window, the chanting getting increasingly louder until the words were clearly audible over Strezo’s speech: “Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest.”
“This ordinance will do nothing to solve the real conflict in the Middle East,” Strezo said. “What it will do and has been doing is make Jewish people and Israelis feel less welcome in our city spaces.”
One councilor pointed out that the ordinance, while worth passing, was not what she’d hoped. Councilor Emily Hardt said, “Supporting Palestinian human rights and standing firmly against antisemitism are not contradictory positions. I believe that both are essential to our commitment to human dignity.” She went on to say that she would have preferred an ordinance that was focused on the actions of the U.S. government, “our government,” but given that this was the ordinance up for the vote, she would support it. “I appreciate the attempts to align use of our resources with our commitments to the rights and dignity of all people, in Israel and Palestine and around the world,” she said.
When the vote was finalized, members of the group Somerville for Palestine and other supporters of the ordinance, many wearing keffiyehs, stood up and cheered as they left the chamber. Shalom Somerville members and others opposing the ordinance, many of whom wore white shirts with blue square pins and had stickers with “I’m not welcome here” on their chests, stood silently as most of the room emptied.
“It’s disappointing seeing councilors knowingly abdicating their responsibility,” said Sam Gechter, president of Shalom Somerville, the local community group that has been active in opposing both the 2025 ballot question and the ordinance. “[Mayor Wilson] made several promises that he would veto it during the campaign. He said he would veto anything that named a country, so we would love to see him do that.”
“It feels so clear that this is what the majority want given that ten of our councilors voted yes,” said Mo Katz-Christy, a member of S4P’s leadership and Jewish Caucus. S4P was a major advocate for the original ballot Question 3 and worked with Councilor Ewen-Campen on the ordinance.
“They passed a strong ordinance that named Israel and Palestine, that named the genocide,” Katz-Christy said, as the S4P group played music in celebration behind them. “It’s targeting companies that are really bad actors.”
Under the ordinance, any vendor who is submitting a bid for the city’s business would have to certify it meets the criteria outlined in the ordinance. If their certification is contested, the city will consult the findings of a number of international organizations and lists, including the database of business enterprises maintained by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the divestment short-list database maintained by the American Friends Service Committee’s Investigate Project. The ordinance specifies that a company could be excluded from this prohibition should the director of finance deem that their services “are essential to the operation of the city, including by avoiding a significant financial burden.”
In the final Legislative Matters Committee meeting discussing the ordinance on Oct. 27, chief procurement officer Angela Allen, echoing the earlier sentiments of City Solicitor Cindy Amara, expressed concerns that the ordinance “would likely not sustain a legal challenge.” She noted that the city does not have the legal authority to debar bidders (prospective vendors) and that she was unsure who would be responsible for making the final call on whether or not a company met the criteria in the ordinance.
“This adds another layer of complexity that I am concerned, from a practical standpoint, could cause confusion and delay that would not be in the best interest of the city,” she said.
The vote came after several rounds of negotiations in the city’s Legislative Matters Committee, during which councilors debated the ethical and financial merits of the ordinance. The final ordinance that was voted on included updates in language that specified the companies that would be included in the ban must be “directly, knowingly and consistently” enabling or facilitating violations of humanitarian law, including in “Israel and Palestine.”
Longtime Somerville resident and Shalom Somerville member Kate Auspitz, who was present at the meeting, said, “I will never vote for any of them [city councilors] again except for Kristen Strezo… I do think it’s antisemitic, whatever they say. I think it’s denying Jews self-determination.”
Outside, in line to enter the City Council chambers, Willie Burnley Jr., a member of Boston Democratic Socialists of America who ran for mayor against Wilson last year and supported ballot Question 3, said: “I’m here to support my neighbors who are fighting for a better world, who are trying to get their city councilors to fight for the will of the people.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Boston suburb votes to divest from Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calls for ‘dramatic change’ in Israel policy
(JTA) — U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat poised to become the chamber’s speaker in January, called for a significant shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship but stopped short of opposing defense partnerships.
“The status quo is unacceptable, and we need dramatic change,” Jeffries told reporters at a Thursday press conference.
Jeffries expressed a need for such change with respect to the West Bank, to Gaza and to a memorandum of understanding with Israel over military aid set to expire in 2028. That agreement, signed by the Obama administration in 2016, pledged $38 billion in military aid for Israel from fiscal years 2019 through 2028.
President Donald Trump has said he will wind the aid down before it is set to lapse, citing Israel’s unpopularity, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also backs ending military aid and replacing it by strengthening U.S.-Israel military cooperation.
But when asked about recent demands from Sen. Chris Van Hollen to remove provisions on defense collaborations with Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act – the model of what Netanyahu hopes to sustain – Jeffries responded that he hadn’t spoken with the senator. Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, plans to challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer leadership of the Senate Democratic caucus when Democrats take over the chamber in January.
Instead, Jeffries said that “things have to dramatically change over in the Middle East,” without elaborating on the details of such changes. He stressed the importance of ensuring “a safe and secure Israel living side by side as a Jewish and democratic state with an independent Palestinian state that provides dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.” Netanyahu and much of the Israeli public oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.
While Jeffries noted that he wasn’t saying anything he hasn’t “previously said publicly,” his decision to reiterate this need for change following the election as Democrats are set to seize control of Congress demonstrates how the party is adopting a more critical posture on Israel.
This past summer, Jeffries wrote to colleagues urging them to reject an amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, that would have cut military aid to Israel. While a slight majority of Democrats voted in favor of the measure, it was defeated after getting no Republican support aside from its sponsor.
Jeffries had argued at the time that “there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government,” warning that Massie’s amendment would have restricted Israel’s ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups.
Nonetheless, Jeffries also noted in the letter that the Obama-era memorandum of understanding “expires imminently,” and that “a meaningful change in direction is needed.” Writing that Israel has a robust economy and is capable of paying for its own weapons, he said that future security arrangements “should be structured consistently with defense agreements that exist with our other Western allies.”
Since writing that letter in July in the lead-up to the midterm elections, Jeffries focused primarily on domestic issues and didn’t often address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Thursday, however, the topic was back on the table.
“We’ll work as a caucus to make sure that we can bring about the just and lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve,” Jeffries said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calls for ‘dramatic change’ in Israel policy appeared first on The Forward.
