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
Here’s exactly why it’s dangerous to compare ICE to Nazis
It may feel morally clarifying to compare ICE to Nazis in moments of outrage. But those comparisons are also historically inaccurate, and politically counterproductive.
Nazism remains historically singular, both because of its eliminationist antisemitism and its state-driven project of industrial genocide. No other political movement has so entirely organized its worldview around the idea that a specific people constitutes a cosmic threat. The Nazis were driven by the belief that the mere existence of Jews endangered humanity, and that Jews therefore had to be physically annihilated everywhere.
A clear understanding of this truth has been absent amid renewed controversy over federal immigration enforcement and protests in Minneapolis. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz compared children hiding in fear from ICE raids to Anne Frank hiding in Amsterdam, in terror of capture by Nazi Germany. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich compared ICE operations under President Donald Trump’s administration to the tactics of Hitler’s Brownshirts. They have been joined by many others, including in this publication.
Comparison is a central tool of historical and political analysis, and Nazism can and should be compared to other ideologies. But flattening the particular contours of Nazism strips it of its distinctive genocidal logic, and risks pushing us to take the wrong messages from its horrors.
When Nazism becomes a general synonym for “bad politics,” the Holocaust becomes a moral prop rather than a historically specific catastrophe. This is especially painful for Jews, but it also distorts the memory of the regime’s many other victims: Roma and Sinti, people with disabilities, prisoners of war, queer people and political dissidents, among others.
Part of what drives these comparisons is cultural familiarity. The Holocaust and the Gestapo are widely understood shorthand for the worst imaginable abuses of state power. Invoking Nazi metaphors often says more about present anxieties — foremost among them the fear that the United States may be sliding toward authoritarianism — than about historical reality.
Those anxieties are profound, and legitimate, especially when it comes to the concerns about injustice toward immigrants. Federal immigration enforcement has long prompted alarm about the abuse of civil liberties, including concerns about racial profiling, excessive force, family separation and opaque chains of accountability.
These problems span multiple U.S. administrations, showing that vigilance and legal challenge are always necessary. Calling them “Gestapo tactics,” however, as some national leaders have, obscures rather than clarifies the issue.
It conflates a flawed system operating within a still-robust framework of legal challenges and public scrutiny with a secret police apparatus designed for totalitarian control and genocide. For instance, in Minnesota, a federal judge threatened to hold the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in contempt for repeatedly defying court orders requiring bond hearings, prompting the agency to release a detainee. The fact that judges can and do continue to compel compliance, even amid sharp disputes over enforcement, shows that the U.S. remains a democracy rather than a secret police state.
There are countries today in which opposition parties are banned, protest is routinely criminalized, courts are fully captured by the regime, and independent media are systematically dismantled — such as Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. In those contexts, the language of secret police, one-party rule, and total state control describes concrete institutional realities.
It does not do so here. Yes, the U.S., like many countries today, is experiencing measurable democratic backsliding. But it remains far from an authoritarian regime. Much of the press remains free, despite significant pressure from the White House as well as structural pressures from corporate ownership, and continues to report extensively on immigration enforcement controversies. Independent courts have ruled against unlawful revocations of immigration protections. Protests in places like Minneapolis have mobilized large numbers of participants and, rather than being criminalized, are showing efficacy in getting the administration to change its course.
Learning from the Holocaust does not require declaring that everything is Nazism. Collapsing the distinction between democratic backsliding and full-fledged authoritarianism weakens our ability to diagnose what kind of political danger we are actually confronting. It might even weaken resistance: Mistaking slow erosion for a finished catastrophe can breed despair instead of motivating strategic action.
Nazi parallels also corrode political discourse itself. If ICE is the Gestapo, and Trump is Hitler, then Republican voters become Nazis by implication. This forecloses the possibility of democratic repair.
While far-right extremist currents undeniably exist within the MAGA movement, it is also a broad political camp that includes voters motivated by a variety of factors, including economic anxiety, distrust of elites and religious identity. Collapsing all of this into “Nazism” is analytically lazy and politically disastrous.
All that on top of the risk of historical whitewashing that comes with this rhetoric. If every abuse is Nazism, then nothing is Nazism, and the lessons of the Holocaust — foremost among them the necessity of vigorously combatting antisemitism in our society — are lost.
Of course, supporters of Trump also engage in similar rhetoric, calling their own opponents Nazis. Ending this cycle of mutual Nazi-labeling is essential if the country hopes to move forward. Historical memory is a tool, not a weapon. We can confront injustice without exaggeration. And the best way to defend democracy is not to demonize our opponents, but rather to speak clearly, act responsibly, and work to build a political culture that can actually heal.
The post Here’s exactly why it’s dangerous to compare ICE to Nazis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Italian rapper Ghali’s planned Winter Olympics set draws backlash over his Gaza advocacy
(JTA) — Italian rapper Ghali’s slated performance at the opening ceremony for this year’s Winter Olympics in Milan has drawn criticism from Italian leaders over his past activism against Israel.
Ghali Amdouni, a prominent Milan-born rapper of Tunisian parents, will be joined by a host of performers including Andrea Bocelli and Mariah Carey during the opening ceremony on Feb. 6. This year, nine Israelis will compete, including the national bobsled team for the first time.
The selection of Ghali drew criticism from members of Italy’s right-wing League party.
“It is truly incredible to find a hater of Israel and the centre-right, already the protagonist of embarrassing and vulgar scenes, at the opening ceremony,” a source from the party told the Italian outlet La Presse. “Italy and the games deserve an artist, not a pro-Pal fanatic.”
In early 2024, Ghali drew criticism from Italian Jewish leaders and Israel’s former ambassador to Italy, Alon Bar, after he called to “stop genocide” during his performance at the Sanremo Italian song festival. The spat later spurred protests outside the office of the Italian public broadcaster RAI.
On X, the rapper has also criticized other artists for not using their platforms for pro-Palestinian activism and appeared to refer to the war in Gaza as a “new Holocaust.”
Ghali’s selection comes as Italy has become an epicenter of pro-Palestinian activism that has been sustained even as such activism has receded in other places. In October, over 2 million Italians took part in a one-day general strike in support of Palestinians and the Global Sumud Flotilla. The previous month, a separate general strike was organized in response to call from the country’s unions to “denounce the genocide in Gaza.”
According to a study of global antisemitism published in April by Tel Aviv University, Italy was one of two countries that saw a spike in antisemitic incidents from 2023 to 2024. A September survey from the pollster SWG found that roughly 15% of Italians believe that physical attacks on Jewish people are “entirely or fairly justifiable.”
Italian Sports Minister Andrea Abodi said he does not believe Ghali will make a political statement on stage.
“It doesn’t embarrass me at all to disagree with Ghali’s views and the messages he sent,” said Abodi, according to the Italian outlet La Repubblica. “But I believe that a country should be able to withstand the impact of an artist expressing an opinion that we don’t share. And that opinion will not, in any case, be expressed on that stage.”
Noemi Di Segni, the president of the Union of the Italian Jewish Community, told Italian media that she was hopeful Ghali would receive instructions ahead of his performance.
“It is clear that I hope Ghali has received instructions or guidelines on the ‘role’ he is expected to play. So I hope he will understand what he needs to do in that context and at that moment,” Di Segni told the Italian outlet La Milano. “I am confident that he will understand what he is called upon to do in that context and at that moment.”
The post Italian rapper Ghali’s planned Winter Olympics set draws backlash over his Gaza advocacy appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
After Alex Pretti killing in Minneapolis, Jewish gun owners confront Second Amendment tensions
(JTA) — Roberta Tarnove was horrified last week when she learned that a man protesting ICE was shot and killed in Minneapolis. And it wasn’t just because someone was dead.
The 65-year-old Jewish resident of Los Angeles was also distressed that federal officials said the agents were justified in shooting Alex Pretti because they believed he was armed. Pretti, 37, was a licensed gun owner in a state where carrying a gun openly is legal.
“I’m very sad. He certainly had every right to carry a gun,” Tarnove said.
The situation hit home for Tarnove because she, too, owns guns and has a permit allowing her to carry concealed firearms.
“As a Jewish person whose Sunday school teachers were mostly Holocaust survivors, there was something about Donald Trump’s presidential run that just hit me hard,” she said. “The dog whistles and things just sounded alarm bells in my head, and so I think I need to get a gun, not that I can overthrow the government, but just for personal protection.”
Since getting her first gun in 2015, Tarnove has been part of a Southern California Jewish gun club, Bullets & Bagels.
There was no discussion of Pretti’s killing at a Bullets & Bagels event featuring the Los Angeles district attorney on Sunday, according to the club’s founder, Fred Kogen. He said he could not comment on the specifics of the shooting.
“What happened there was that this gentleman lost his life, that’s all I know, to be honest, and that, interestingly enough, has not been a discussion within the community of Jewish shooters that I’m a part of,” Kogen said.
Tarnove wasn’t there on Sunday. But she said she wasn’t surprised by Kogen’s report.
“The reaction from the overruling gun community — and apparently the government — is, well, if you bring a gun to protest, you’re going to get shot,” Tarnove said. “So it’s Second Amendment for me, but not for thee, which is one of the things about the gun culture I really hate.”
Pretti’s killing has spurred sharp debate over whether the Trump administration’s response to armed protesters may be at odds with Second Amendment protections traditionally cherished by conservatives.
The debate is also taking place among American Jews. While American Jews have historically opposed gun ownership, Oct. 7 and the ensuing rise in antisemitism across the country has spurred many to take up arms for the first time. Now, Jewish gun owners are confronting a tension that has emerged between their right to bear arms and the federal government’s response to armed civilians.
“My personal opinion is that he was executed,” said J.N., a 59-year-old Jewish gun owner in the Washington, D.C., suburbs who requested anonymity to protect his employment. “I’ve watched the video like everybody else, his hand never went anywhere near his gun. It was handled horrifically.”
On the other hand, Bruce Cohen, a lifelong Jewish gun owner in Arizona who hosts the Facebook group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, said he believed Pretti was “looking for trouble.”
“I don’t know if I can fault the law enforcement officer,” Cohen said. “As a libertarian, I want very, very strict limits on police powers, I do not want police to abuse or mistreat or mislead citizens or non-citizens, for that matter, but I can see how that could happen, and if that person was more careful and more friendly and exercised his freedom of speech and right to protest in a more appropriate manner then he could be protesting today.”
In the wake of Pretti’s killing, several Trump administration officials said his gun possession instigated the shooting. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed Pretti “attacked” officers and was “brandishing” a gun, though a preliminary report completed on Tuesday by Customs and Border Protection found he did not brandish a weapon during the encounter.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump himself said, “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns,” in response to a question about the killing from PBS.
“My assessment is the government is lying,” said J.N. “I don’t know why he carried it, but he’s entitled to carry it, he had a concealed carry permit. The Second Amendment says that you’re allowed to carry a gun, so I can’t fathom why the government, supposedly a Republican government, would say that.”
In a post on X, the National Rifle Association took aim at the rhetoric from the federal government, writing, “Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
A national Jewish gun club, Lox & Loaded, echoed that sentiment.
“Lox & Loaded stands firmly behind the absolute right to bear and conceal arms in any lawful setting,” said COO Gayle Pearlstein. “The pending investigation and resulting determination of the incident involving Mr. Pretti and federal law enforcement should in no way interfere with or call into question this longstanding personal right.”
Jordan Levine, the Jewish founder of the online gun advocacy group A Better Way 2A, said he believed the shooting of Pretti “sets a precedent, because it calls into question if somebody can be murdered for simply carrying a gun.”
But Levine stipulated that he was not concerned “as of right now” about losing Second Amendment rights.
“The Trump administration, thankfully, is still a bit removed from our court systems, and we’ve seen time and time again the court’s ruling in favor of Second Amendment liberties,” Levine continued.
Cohen said he would have handled the situation differently in Pretti’s shoes.
“If I was in his situation with his motivations, I would have introduced myself to the cops. I would have shaken hands with the cops, I would have said, hey, I disagree with what you’re doing, but thank you for being professional,” said Cohen.
But others within the JPFO Facebook group were quick to decry the federal government’s rhetoric.
“I’m not going to shut up and wait when agents of an authoritarian government are violating the rights of and killing citizens,” wrote one JPFO member. “The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to fight tyranny.”
J.N., who is also a member of the JPFO group, said, “As a Jewish person, and as an American, it sickens me.”
In the wake of Pretti’s killing, many critics have likened ICE’s tactics in Minneapolis to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. While both Trump administration officials and some Jewish voices have called such comparisons inappropriate, for J.N., the similarities rang true.
“I’m not going to call them Nazis, because nobody’s being sent to the showers and burned en masse, OK, I get the difference, but I can tell you that I feel like they are using Gestapo techniques,” J.N. said.
Cohen said the comparison was a “standard left-wing package.”
“They train people to say that stuff, and it’s hypocritical and insincere because they don’t actually believe what they’re saying,” said Cohen. “I don’t see that at all, because we’re not, you know, the Jews in Germany. We’re not illegal aliens, we’re not on welfare, we’re not doing criminal things, we’re not stealing financially.”
For Tarnove, the federal government’s rhetoric around Pretti’s gun ownership had raised alarm bells for potential restrictions against gun ownership for certain groups.
“We aren’t past the point of no return, but we are getting so darn close, and I wish that more Jews would recognize that,” said Tarnove. “When the government can go after one group of people, then they can go after any group of people, and you’re not safe.”
The post After Alex Pretti killing in Minneapolis, Jewish gun owners confront Second Amendment tensions appeared first on The Forward.