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
Vast Trove of Medieval Jewish Records Opened Up by AI
A researcher of MiDRASH, a project dedicated to analyzing the National Library of Israel’s digital database of all known Hebrew manuscripts using Machine Learning, including manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza, holds up a 12th century fragment of a Yom Kippur liturgy in Jerusalem, Nov. 24, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Researchers in Israel are hoping to make new discoveries about Jewish history by loading a digital database of manuscripts stretching back a thousand years into a new transcription tool that uses artificial intelligence.
The Cairo Geniza, the biggest collection of medieval Jewish documents in the world, has been the object of countless hours of study by scholars for more than a century but only a fraction of its over 400,000 documents have been thoroughly researched.
Although the entire collection has already been digitized and is available online in the form of images, most of its items have not been catalogued, many are disordered fragments from longer documents, and only around a tenth have transcriptions.
By training an AI model to read and transcribe the old texts, researchers will now be able to access and analyze the whole collection far more quickly, cross referencing names or words and assembling fragments into fuller documents.
“We are constantly trying to improve the abilities of the machine to decipher ancient scripts,” said Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, one of the principal researchers in the MiDRASH transcription project.
The project has already made significant progress and could open up the documents – written in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, and Yiddish in a wide variety of handwritten scripts – to many different researchers, Stokl Ben Ezra added.
Transcriptions from more difficult manuscripts are reviewed by researchers for accuracy, helping to improve the AI training.
“The modern translation possibilities are incredibly advanced now and interlacing all this becomes much more feasible, much more accessible to the normal and not scientific reader,” he said.
Funded by the European Research Council, the project is based on the National Library of Israel’s digital database of the Cairo Geniza documents and brings together researchers from several universities and other institutes.
ANCIENT STOREROOM
One document transcribed by the project is a 16th century letter in Yiddish from Rachel, a widow from Jerusalem, to her son in Egypt with his reply written in the margins telling of his efforts to survive a plague sweeping through Cairo.
A Geniza is a synagogue’s repository for significant documents that are ultimately intended for ritual burial, and the one found in the Ben Ezra synagogue in historic Cairo had a dry atmosphere ideal for the preservation of old paper.
Cairo surpassed Damascus and Baghdad in the Middle Ages as the greatest city of the Middle East, a center of global trade, learning, and science and home to a thriving Jewish community, later expanded by refugees fleeing newly Christian Spain.
The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides, who was physician to the family of Saladin, the famous Muslim sultan who ousted the crusaders from Jerusalem, worshipped at the Ben Ezra synagogue while living in Cairo.
As dynasties and empires rose and fell, the community quietly went about its daily life, its religious authorities filling the Geniza with the rabbinical arguments, civic records and other detritus of administrative and intellectual business.
The Geniza’s astonishing haul of records and papers, including some written by Maimonides himself, was discovered by scholars in the late 19th century but, although it has been studied ever since, its enormous size means huge gaps remain.
“The possibility to reconstruct, to make a kind of Facebook of the Middle Ages, is just before our eyes,” Stokl Ben Ezra said.
Uncategorized
Pro-Hamas Group Palestine Action’s Appeal Over UK Ban Begins
Protesters from “Palestine Action” demonstrate on the roof of Guardtech Group in Brandon, Suffolk, Britain, July 1, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Chris Radburn
The British government’s ban on the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas campaign group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization amounted to an authoritarian restriction on protest, lawyers representing a co-founder seeking to overturn the ban argued on Wednesday.
Palestine Action was proscribed in July, putting it on a par with Islamic State or al Qaeda and making it a crime to be a member, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Since then, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for holding signs in support of the group.
The group had increasingly targeted Israel-linked defense companies in Britain with “direct action,” often blocking entrances, or spraying red paint, particularly focusing on Israel’s largest defense firm Elbit Systems.
Britain’s Home Office [interior ministry] argues the group‘s escalating actions, culminating in a June break-in at the RAF Brize Norton air base when activists damaged two planes, amount to terrorism.
But lawyers representing Huda Ammori, who co-founded Palestine Action in 2020, say the move flies in the face of Britain’s long history of direct action protests and is “so extreme as to render the UK an international outlier.”
It was the first time a “direct action, civil disobedience organization that does not advocate for violence” had been proscribed as terrorist, Ammori’s lawyer Raza Husain told London’s High Court.
He compared the response to the group to that of other civil disobedience campaigns, such as Rosa Parks, the late US civil rights figure who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in 1955, and the suffragette movement which campaigned for women’s right to vote in the early 20th century.
GROUP‘S ACTIONS ESCALATED AMID WAR IN GAZA
Lawyers representing the Home Office said in court filings that the right to freedom of expression does not protect “speech and activity in support of a proscribed organization that commits serious property damage.”
Palestine Action has frequently targeted defense companies. It stepped up its actions during the Gaza war, with six members arrested on suspicion of plotting to disrupt the London Stock Exchange in January 2024.
Six people went on trial last week for aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder over a raid on Elbit, with one charged with causing grievous bodily harm by hitting a police officer with a sledgehammer. They deny the charges.
Ammori’s lawyers say the ban has led to pro-Palestinian protesters being questioned by police at demonstrations without expressing support for Palestine Action.
The British government argues proscription only prevents support for Palestine Action and has not prevented people from protesting “in favor of the Palestinian people or against Israel’s actions in Gaza.”
The case is due to conclude next week, with a ruling at a later date.
Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson’s Latest Attack on Jews Is His Worst Yet
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024, during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Tucker Carlson has said some ugly things over the years, but even by his standards, last week was a new low.
In a monologue framed as a warning — because demagogues often pretend they’re just “warning” — Carlson delivered one of the most explicit and chilling mainstream threats toward American Jews in decades.
Speaking about people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, Tucker said:
Give us the money for our preferred little country, or else we’re going to denounce you … Man, those attitudes are incompatible with leadership and in fact with democracy itself. You can’t have a country of 350 million people governed by boutique goals concerns … It doesn’t work. It’s illegitimate. If you keep it up, you’re flirting with real backlash. Like a real one … Not Nick Fuentes. Like a real one. So cool it. Don’t treat people like cattle.”
“Preferred little country.”
“Boutique goals.”
“Backlash.”
“Cool it.”
This was not analysis.
This was menace.
And it came wrapped in projection so brazen it would be funny — if the history behind it weren’t so deadly.
Because while Carlson accuses American Jews of disloyalty, coercion, and anti-democratic behavior, he has spent years whitewashing, rationalizing, or outright promoting the most openly anti-American movements operating on US soil: the anti-Israel campus mobs, the “resistance” celebrations of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the organizations openly seeking the dismantling of the American “empire” itself.
Carlson has nothing to say about movements that literally burn American flags
Let’s start with what Carlson ignores — because the silence is the tell.
Over the past two-plus years, anti-Israel protesters across the country have:
- burned American flags on college campuses and in major US cities,
- praised terrorists who murdered American citizens on Oct. 7,
- chanted “Death to America,” “Glory to our martyrs,” and “Resistance is justified from Gaza to New York,”
- waved Hezbollah, Hamas, IRGC, and even Houthi flags,
- shut down airports, highways, and Federal buildings,
- declared their goal is to “dismantle the US settler colony” (SJP),
- and demanded that America “collapse so a new world can be born.”
Not once — not even once — has Tucker Carlson accused any of these groups of “dual loyalty,” “treason,” “boutique goals,” or “corrupting democracy.”
Not once has he warned them of a coming “backlash.”
Not once has he urged them to “cool it.”
It turns out his concern for “American democracy” applies only to one group: Jews who support America’s democratic ally, Israel.
Meanwhile, the pro-Israel demonstrators Carlson smears wave American flags
Attend any pro-Israel rally in America and you’ll see a sea of US flags.
Mainstream Jewish Americans — whom Carlson now accuses of “treating other Americans like cattle” — regularly:
- thank US soldiers,
- praise America’s democratic traditions,
- and celebrate the shared values between the US and Israel.
The people Carlson calls “disloyal” attend rallies that look like Fourth of July parades.
The people he ignores are waving terror flags and chanting for America’s destruction.
Is this “America First”?
Of course not.
It is not patriotism driving Carlson.
It is obsession.
And obsession of this type always has a name.
What Carlson calls “boutique interests” are simply American Jews participating in American democracy
Carlson’s rant targeting Jewish media figures like Shapiro and Levin — two men whose “crime” is advocating policies Tucker himself embraced until he discovered the profitability of being the chief podcaster of the woke-right — is as familiar as it is poisonous:
- Jews advocating for a strong US–Israel alliance = anti-democratic “boutique interests.”
- Jews engaging in politics = “corrupting democracy.”
- Jews influencing policy (like everyone else) = “flirting with backlash.”
This is indistinguishable from Charles Lindbergh’s 1941 warning that Jews were steering America toward disaster and would deserve the “backlash” that followed.
The “America First” movement Carlson imagines has always carried this rot.
He’s just comfortable saying it out loud.
Carlson accuses Jews of:
- political coercion,
- ideological dominance,
- and treating opponents like “cattle.”
But his movement features:
- Nick Fuentes, the neo-Nazi Carlson now rehabilitates as a kind of misunderstood populist, who openly calls for stripping Jews of civil rights.
- Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose Christian nationalism rejects pluralistic democracy.
- Pedro Gonzalez, a figure Carlson helped mainstream, was caught pushing overt antisemitic tropes about Jewish “control,” the very rhetoric his movement now feeds on.
- Influencers in Carlson’s orbit who praise Putin, the IRGC, and the Houthis — America’s enemies.
This is the camp lecturing American Jews about “loyalty”?
Carlson’s rant wasn’t just hypocritical.
It was textbook projection.
And then there’s his selective outrage about “foreign influence”
Carlson says American Jews undermine America because they support Israel — America’s only reliable democratic ally in the Middle East.
But here’s what he never mentions:
- Anti-Israel campus groups receive support from networks tied to Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Iran’s propaganda arms amplify the same talking points as the woke-right.
- Anti-Israel leaders openly praise the IRGC and Hezbollah.
- Many anti-Israel protesters literally call for America’s collapse.
Yet the only “foreign subversion” he sees … is Jews?
He sees “treason” in pro-Israel Americans.
He sees “populism” in pro-Iran activists.
Carlson himself went to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin and give him a puff piece — and then offered the same courtesy to Iran’s “death to America” president.
Again: the silence is the tell.
Why Carlson targets Jews and not America’s real enemies
Because his movement needs a villain — one the far-right and far-left can share. And that villain — once again, as always — is the Jew.
There is no principle behind Carlson’s position. Only narrative:
- When Jews oppose Hamas → they are warmongers.
- When Jews support a strong America and strong US–Israel alliance → they are disloyal.
- When Jews engage politically → they corrupt democracy.
- When Jews defend themselves → they threaten national stability.
It’s the longest-running script in history.
Carlson just updated it for 2025 and put it on primetime.
At a time when genuine anti-American extremism is flourishing — in campus encampments, online propaganda networks, and foreign-backed organizations — Tucker Carlson has chosen to threaten the Americans waving US flags.
He has chosen to smear: Americans committed to democratic values.
He has chosen to accuse of treason: Americans whose “foreign cause” is a US ally under attack by terrorists who also kill Americans. Perhaps Tucker has forgotten how Iran’s proxies have killed literally hundreds of American service members — as they are enemies of both Israel and America.
And he has chosen to threaten a “real backlash” against: the one minority that history shows gets blamed whenever demagogues need a villain.
This is not patriotism.
It is not conservatism.
It is not “America First.”
It is the oldest hatred wearing a new mask.
And the mask isn’t slipping.
It’s off.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, antisemitism, and Jewish history and serves on the board of Herut North America.
