RSS
Why Donniel Hartman sees a brighter Israeli future — in 2026
(JTA) — When Israel’s parliament on Monday passed the first plank in a series of reform proposals meant to curb the power of Israel’s judiciary, it set off alarms among Israel’s supporters abroad.
Liberal and centrist Jewish groups said weakening the judiciary would undermine Israeli democracy. Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, wrote an open letter to President Joe Biden saying that he must save Israel “from being destroyed from the inside.” Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin welcomed news that Israel’s Supreme Court would review the legislation, saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “will have endangered the country for nothing.”
Rabbi Donniel Hartman is urging critics of the judicial reforms and Netanyahu’s government to take a deep breath. Not because he supports the proposals — he agrees they would “undermine the systems of checks and balances necessary to protect Israel’s democratic identity.” But he warns that the bill passed on Monday represents one of the least controversial planks in Netanyahu’s reform plan, and that the massive demonstrations against the proposals have united an Israeli consensus around what he is calling a “new social coalition.”
Hartman is the president, along with Yehuda Kurtzer, of the Shalom Hartman Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank that promotes pluralism and liberal values in Israel and beyond. Hundreds of North American rabbis and Jewish lay leaders have cycled through Hartman programs, which promote diversity, civil discourse and what it calls the “democratic character of Israel.”
Hartman recently spoke to a group of rabbis about the public backlash to the reform proposals, and the political implications between now and the next scheduled Israeli elections in 2026. On Thursday, he shared some of those same ideas with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, explaining why he thinks Netanyahu is playing a weak hand, why the Palestinian issue is on the back burner and why North American Jews should channel their gloom over the current legislation into support for its opponents.
A note on the judicial proposals: The legislation passed Monday would end the Israeli Supreme Court’s ability to strike down government decisions and appointments judges deems “unreasonable.” Other proposals include changing the law to allow ministers to install political appointees as legal advisers in their ministries — which critics say would remove an important check on corruption — and one that would give the Knesset the power to override Supreme Court decisions by a simple majority. Another proposal would give more power to politicians in appointing judges.
For now, those proposals are on pause.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
I’ve been thinking of the “day after” fear and anticipation after some recent watershed events – Trump’s election, the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, maybe the Brexit vote. Did Monday’s vote on the “reasonableness” clause mark a before and after?
No. It doesn’t feel like a Brexit moment, because the vote on the reasonableness clause is not big enough. The election itself was more significant. The proposal of the reform was more significant. The “reasonableness” clause was the perfect issue for Netanyahu to pick, because it’s the most reasonable of the judicial reform proposals. Overall there are five big reform proposals, including the way the Israeli Supreme Court is selected, the power of the attorneys general and the “override” clause. The last is the one the haredi Orthodox want because no matter who is on the Supreme Court or what they decide they could just cancel it out. That’s just the end of democracy.
So Netanyahu pushed the right one for a first victory, but in order to stop the slippery slope process, [the opposition] had to pretend as if this was very big. It was a tactical game, to claim that the override clause was the end of democracy. Tom Friedman overplayed his cards. Nope. It’s far from the end.
This was just the beginning of a three-year war. This is going to go on until 2026.
Why 2026?
That’s when the next elections are.
Assuming the government doesn’t fall before then.
It can’t fall. Because unless there’s an internal split in Likud [Netanyahu’s party], neither [far-right government ministers Itamar] Ben-Gvir or [Betzalel] Smotrich or the haredim will ever join with the Joint List [an Arab coalition] or Avigdor Lieberman [a nationalist opposition member] to vote this government out. They’ll kvetch, they’ll complain, they’ll threaten, but they can’t leave and that’s what makes it so strange that Netanyahu seems so intimidated by them. Because he holds all the power. They have no power. Where are they going to go? Who are they going to sit with? If they vote against the right-wing government, their careers will be over.
You said the 2022 election was the real watershed moment. In what way?
The consequence of the election was the judicial reform proposals, which raised a fundamental question: What is the nature of our country? Trump wasn’t the end of America, but his election asked the question, What is America?
Can Israelis right the ship as they see it in the next election?
I believe this is the last Likud-led government and it certainly is the last right-wing government. That’s assuming that Netanyahu is not going to be prime minister. This whole reform issue has created an awareness that there are different coalitions being formed in Israel, which aren’t being formed around the right-left wing divide. That divide doesn’t really exist anymore. There is a broad centrist camp that agrees on Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and economic theory. And there is no possibility of a two-state solution anyway — I just don’t know how to implement it. On the fringes, there is a left-wing socialist camp, let’s call it, and there is a right-wing settler group. Other than that, 80% of Israel is not divided under the left wing-right wing categories. You see at the demonstrations and in the polls that 20 to 30% of those who used to be on the right or are still on the right no longer want to vote for Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. They want to find alternative expressions for their identities.
“If you fight and you stand up and you don’t walk away, there are partners in Israel who are looking at you and who feel encouraged by you,” said Rabbi Donniel Hartman, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute. (Courtesy)
What we need to do over the next three years is to frame a new social coalition in Israel, around internal values of liberal Zionism and liberal Judaism, which 80% of Israelis accept. Then we can win and that’s where 2026 is going to change.
You said “assuming that Netanyahu is not going to be prime minister.” How does he keep this new social coalition from happening?
As long as he runs, the center and the left won’t join a coalition with him. They’re like never-Trumpers. They despise him. They don’t trust him. The Likud kept Netanyahu because he gave them 32 seats [a formidable bloc in the 120-seat Knesset, where 61 seats are needed to form a government]. But if he goes down to 26, there’s a whole bunch of people who are just waiting to replace him.
You used the term “liberal Zionist” before. I think you use it differently than an American Jew might. Here it means someone who is pro-Israel but is desperate to see a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It’s very interesting how the category of liberalism has been reclaimed in Israeli society. While in America the term is very divisive, actually in Israel it is becoming much more inclusive. It’s the old liberalism of liberties — a belief in Zionism and the right of the Jewish people to a state but one that believes in human rights and a diverse public sphere and that respects law and the Supreme Court. It’s the old Likud. It’s the old [Ze’ev] Jabotinsky [the pre-state leader of Revisionist Zionism]. It’s the old [Likud Prime Minister] Menachem Begin. It’s not Smotrich or Ben-Gvir, and it’s not the haredi parties.
But it doesn’t extend to the Palestinian issue.
Liberal Zionism in Israel recognizes that we don’t want to be an occupier of another people. But for the vast majority of Israelis, “the Palestinians want to murder me.” There is no Palestinian Authority today. The Palestinian Authority controls the Mukata [the P.A. headquarters in Ramallah] and three upper-middle-class towns in Judea and Samaria. Hamas and Islamic Jihad would run away with any election.
It’s very hard to even have a conversation about Palestinian rights in Israel, when you feel you’re talking about a society that wants to kill you.
I just finished a book that is getting published in November, and I have a whole section on it challenging North American liberal Jews to recognize that they have liberal partners in Israel, even though they don’t agree with you on Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, or what you even call it.
And yet, for a lot of American Jews — as well as for American anti- Zionists and a lot of progressives — Israel is judged only to the degree that it solves the Palestinian problem. Liberal Zionists define themselves around their commitment to a two-state solution, but you’re asking them to see common ground around other liberal issues.
I distinguish between tolerable occupiers and intolerable occupiers. Intolerable occupiers are those who believe that we have a right to all of Israel, and that Palestinian lives don’t matter. It’s a combination of ultra- nationalism, fascism and messianism. That’s one group. Then there’s a whole massive group for whom the only reason why the occupation continues is that they believe that there is no peace partner and that Israel’s survival is in danger if we do anything.
People think I’m liberal. I’m more or less liberal. I’m for a two-state solution. I just don’t know how to implement it. Tell me what I could do now? I’m willing to stop settlements. I’m willing to curb settlements. I’m willing to do everything. I used to be for unilateral withdrawal. What would happen if you had unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria?
Now, when you have a government that is not willing to admit that Palestinians have rights, or is not yearning for a peaceful solution, then of course we lose. That’s what Netanyahu’s doing since he sits with these [far-right] people. He has quieted all moral conversation when it comes to Israeli political life. So when that happens, of course, people with a moral voice would say, “What’s going on here?” Because it’s true, as you said, Zionism has ceded the moral conversation to the anti-Zionist camp.
Still, I think we can create a unified liberal Zionist conversation even though North American Jews and Israeli Jews might have a different opinion on what is the most viable solution right now.
Since we’re talking on Tisha B’Av, I went to services last night and the person who led the services gave a scorched-earth lament for Israel, basically saying his dreams for Israel are dying and he tied the week’s events, as a lot of people have, to the cataclysms that we acknowledge on the fast day, including the destruction of the First and Second Temples. What are you telling either Israelis or Diaspora supporters of Israel who are talking in apocalyptic terms about this week’s vote and the push for judicial reform by this government?
We mourn the destruction of the Temple. We learn from the destruction of the Temple. But we don’t declare the Temple destroyed before it’s destroyed.
Everything in Jewish history is about hope. It’s about working under impossible conditions. And Israel is now working under impossible conditions. That’s true. There is a government which is advocating for an Israel that half of Israel and 90% of North American Jewry wants nothing to do with. But Israel is not defined by its government alone, as you discovered when it came to Trump. People have a voice. What the demonstrations make clear is that the vast majority of Israelis do not support these proposals.
It’s one thing to turn your back on the Israeli government. But we’re out there marching. We don’t embrace destruction before it happens, but we get to work. There is a blueprint forward. The vast majority of Israelis now are embracing a liberal Zionism of the type I mentioned. North American Jews now have partners. They might not be perfect partners, but they have partners. Why walk away from Israel, when the majority of Israelis are now saying things they never said before: “I care about the Supreme Court. I care about human rights. I care about the rights of minorities”? This is what they’re talking about at every demonstration.
So I would go back to your [prayer leader] and say to him, “We waited 2,000 freaking years to have this country. Could you wait three more years? And could you fight for three years?” Because if you fight and you stand up and you don’t walk away, there are partners in Israel who are looking at you and who feel encouraged by you. We can build it.
—
The post Why Donniel Hartman sees a brighter Israeli future — in 2026 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Director of ‘Emilia Pérez’ and Star Zoe Saldana Respond to Karla Sofia Gascon’s Hateful Comments About Hitler, Islam
Adriana Paz, Edgar Ramirez, Selena Gomez, Jacques Audiard, Karla Sofia Gascon, and Zoe Saldana, winners of the Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy award for “Emilia Perez,” pose at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., January 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni/File Photo
The director of the Oscar-nominated film “Emilia Perez” and its supporting actress Zoe Saldana have both publicly spoken out about the scandal involving the film’s lead star Karla Sofia Gascon and her past comments on X/Twitter, which include praise of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
In Spanish-language tweets from 2019 that resurfaced last week, Gascon seemingly defended Nazi leader Adolf Hitler for his hatred of Jews. “I don’t understand so much about the world war against Hitler, he simply had his opinion about Jews,” she wrote in one post. She said in another tweet that year: “Hitler believed that his people were divine and belonged to a superior race. They all wiped him out, now the swastika can’t even reproduce itself. The church, Islam, etc. have caused millions more deaths throughout the history of humanity and they are still there. It makes you think.”
In Spanish-language separate tweets, mostly from 2020 and 2021 but also as far back as 2016, Gascón heavily criticized Islam, suggesting that it should be banned and that the religion “violates human rights.” She attacked Muslim attire, language and culture in her native country of Spain. In 2016, she tweeted, “Islam is becoming a hotbed of infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured.” In separate tweets she called African-Amercian man George Floyd a “drug addict and a hustler” after he was killed by a police officer in 2020 and inspired protests around the US.
“Emilia Perez,” a Spanish-language musical and crime drama about a transgender gangster, received 13 Oscar nominations this year – more than any other film. It includes Saldana’s first Academy Award nomination, for best supporting actress, and a nod for director/co-writer Jacques Audiard. The film set a new record for the most Oscar nominations earned by a non-English film and marks the first time an openly trans actor, Gascón, has been nominated for an Oscar.
Audiard told Deadline on Wednesday that Gascon’s past comments on X are “inexcusable.”
“It’s very hard for me to think back to the work I did with Karla Sofía,” he said. “The trust we shared, the exceptional atmosphere that we had on the set that was indeed based on trust. And when you have that kind of relationship and suddenly you read something that that person has said, things that are absolutely hateful and worthy of being hated, of course that relationship is affected. It’s as if you fall into a hole. Because what Karla Sofía said is inexcusable.” Audiard added that he has not spoken to Garcon since the controversy erupted last week, “and I don’t want to.”
“I’m not getting in touch with her because right now she needs space to reflect and take accountability for her actions,” he explained. “She’s really playing the victim. She’s talking about herself as a victim, which is surprising. It’s as if she thought that words don’t hurt.”
Garcon apologized for her past social media activity in a statement on Jan. 30 via Netflix, where her “Emilia Perez” is streaming. “As someone in a marginalized community, I know this suffering all too well and I am deeply sorry to those I have caused pain,” she said. “All my life I have fought for a better world. I believe light will always triumph over darkness.” Gascón has since deactivated her X account.
Later, in a lengthy Instagram post, she apologized again but also defended herself, saying in Spanish that her posts were taken out of context. She insisted that she’s “not racist” and that she was not given the option to explain the “real intention” behind her comments on X. “I have always fought for a more just society and for a world of freedom, of peace and of love. I will never support wars, religious extremism or oppression of races and peoples,” she wrote.
In an interview with Variety published on Wednesday, Saldana expressed sadness and disappointment about the situation.
“I’m sad. Time and time again, that’s the word because that is the sentiment that has been living in my chest since everything happened,” she said. “I’m also disappointed. I can’t speak for other people’s actions. All I can attest to is my experience, and never in a million years did I ever believe that we would be here.”
Gascon told CNN Español that her “Emilia Perez” co-stars Saldaña and Gomez “support me 200 percent,” but Saldaña would not confirm that claim while speaking to Variety. Instead, Saldana said: “I do not support any negative rhetoric of racism and bigotry towards any group of people. That is what I want to stand for.” Saldana made similar comments in London last week during a Q&A for “Emilia Perez.” She said at the time: “I don’t have any tolerance for any negative rhetoric towards people of any group,”
The post Director of ‘Emilia Pérez’ and Star Zoe Saldana Respond to Karla Sofia Gascon’s Hateful Comments About Hitler, Islam first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Vision, and Gaza 2.0
US President Donald Trump looks on as he signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, US, Jan. 31, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, then the outrage over President Donald Trump’s announcement on his vision for Gaza misses the failures of the “international community” and the Palestinians themselves over the years:
• Pushing Israel to withdraw from land in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza.
• Watching terrorists build arsenals, attack Israel, and raise generations of people to believe violent death is holy as long as it also kills Jews.
• Pouring in “aid” and money, which the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah steal while the agencies feed the people, perverting the idea of productivity, earning power, and self-determination.
• Watching terrorists fire rockets at Israel and demanding a ceasefire when Israel fires back.
• Being sympathetic when individual Israelis are killed in terror incidents, but blaming the lack of “progress” on Israel’s unwillingness to concede a Palestinian state.
Rinse and repeat.
The response to Trump’s plan also misses the progression in the president’s own pronouncements regarding the future of Gaza. The first came in January 2020 at a meeting in Washington with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to introduce his “Vision for Peace,” which, several months and much negotiation later, became the Abraham Accords.
“The Vision” was 180 pages long and meticulously detailed. The high points are these:
First, the complicity of Arab countries in the miserable situation of Palestinians. “It is time,” Trump’s report said, “for the Muslim world to fix the mistake it made in 1948, when it chose to attack instead of to recognize the new state of Israel. The Palestinians are the primary pawn in this adventurism, and it is time for this sad chapter in history to end.”
By recognizing that the Palestinians were left hanging by their Arab brothers between 1948 and 1967, he made the solution to the Palestinian plight the Arab states’ responsibility, as well. That showed up again this week.
Second, while he was extraordinarily sympathetic to the Palestinian people — particularly young people whom he lamented are “growing up with no hope” — he said that there were things the Palestinian Authority does that are unacceptable to both Israel and the United States. He did not mention Hamas at the time, but the point holds. Those claiming the President is advocating “ethnic cleansing” or something worse aren’t paying attention — and don’t want to.
Third, he offered recognition of “Palestine as the nation-state of the Palestinian people” with a capital in Jerusalem (which would remain undivided and under Israeli sovereignty), “where the US will proudly open an embassy,” plus massive international investment. In exchange, the President told them to “meet the challenges of peaceful coexistence”:
• Adopt laws ensuring basic human rights and protecting against financial and political corruption.
• Stop malignant activities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• End incitement against Israel; and
• Permanently halt financial compensation to terrorists.
Let’s face it, these constitute a very low bar for any decent and humane society.
Giving up those unacceptable things before the US would support the Palestinians’ desire for an independent state is what some people call “preconditions.” Yes — that’s precisely what they are. Said the president, “It is never too late. It is time to rise up and meet the challenges of the future. If they do it, it will work.”
Except they didn’t.
The PA is an active sponsor of terrorism. It also steals from its own people and represses them politically and — for Christian Arabs, religiously. In Gaza, Hamas did that and more.
Rather than suggesting yet another ceasefire and hoping to work that into a “two-state solution,” or giving the PA control in Gaza, or giving terror-sponsor Qatar the right to redevelop the devastated places by hiring its Hamas buddies to do the work and steal the money, Trump looked at it another way.
The US will do it. There are details to be parsed here — and they will be — but the most important point is, actually, the one Palestinians and their international enablers have been making through their tears — that Gaza is their home; they are Gazans. A Gaza journalist, Tariq Dahlan, apparently told BBC reporter Alice Cuddy, “People in Gaza, like all in the world, are deeply connected to the place where they were born, raised, and have been living all their lives … Every one of us is deeply connected to our homes and we would reject any eviction. We will stay put on this land even though there is death and destruction.”
But if it’s their land and their government — and they are currently situated there — how can they continue to be refugees? The answer is that they are not “refugees.” (Goodbye UNRWA.)
Now, there is a conversation no one wants to have. Except, perhaps, President Trump. In 2020, Palestinians chose not to participate in The Vision, which became the Abraham Accords by the end of that year. In 2025, the deal is different. Less favorable to the Palestinians in the short term, perhaps, but that’s the price of losing the war they started.
The post Trump’s Vision, and Gaza 2.0 first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Robert Kraft’s Super Bowl LIX Commercial to Help Combat Hatred Features Snoop Dogg and Tom Brady
Snoop Dogg and Tom Brady in the new Super Bowl commercial from FCAS titled “No Reason to Hate.” Photo: Screenshot
The Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS), founded by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, will air its second ever Super Bowl commercial on Sunday and the 30-second spot this year features rapper Snoop Dogg and former Patriots legend Tom Brady.
The ad is titled “No Reason to Hate” and will air during Super Bowl LIX between the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles. In the clip, released on Monday, Brady and Snoop Dogg face each other while make spiteful digs and giving examples of the, often stupid, reasons why you might hate someone.
“I hate you because we’re from different neighborhoods,” Snoop Dogg says. “I hate you because you look different,” Brady replies.
“I hate you because I don’t understand you … because you talk different … Because you’re just different,” Snoop Dogg says. Brady responds by saying, “I hate you because people I know hate you … Because I need someone to blame … Because you act different.”
At the end of their face-off, a line appears on screen that says: “The reasons for hate are as stupid as they sound.” Snoop Dogg then concludes by saying, “Man, I hate that things are so bad, we have to do a commercial about it.” Brady replies, “Me, too.” The duo then walk out of frame and the final message on the screen says, “Stand up to all hate.”
Some Jewish activists criticized the commercial on social media for not mentioning antisemitism or Jews at all. Snoop Dogg’s involvement in the ad also received backlash in light of a hateful image he posted on Instagram in 2020 that compared America to the Nazis.
Kraft released a statement about FCAS’ decision to bring Snoop Dogg and Brady together for the commercial.
“Their shared commitment to this cause speaks to the strength of and amplifies the foundation’s continued message: no matter where we come from, there is no place for hate in our world,” Kraft explained. “Together, with their leadership, we’re reminding everyone that the fight against hate is a fight we can all win.”
“The Foundation to Combat Antisemitism is doing incredible work, and I’m honored to stand with them in the fight against hate,” Brady added. “This Super Bowl, football is on my mind, but so is something even bigger – building a world where hate has no place. The ‘No Reason to Hate’ campaign isn’t just a message; it’s a movement. I’m proud to be a part of it, and I hope you’ll join us.”
As part of its “No Reason to Hate” campaign, FCAS, which launched in 2019, will additionally host its first Unity Summit at the Xavier University of New Orleans, Louisiana, on Friday. As part of the foundation’s Unity Dinner series, and in partnership with United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and Hillel International, the event will bring together more than 100 Black and Jewish college students who want to combat hate.
FCAS debuted its first Super Bowl commercial last year and directly addressed hatred targeting the Jewish community. It starred Clarence B. Jones, a prominent civil rights leader who helped draft Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s iconic speech “I Have a Dream.” Last year’s commercial ended with the tagline: “Stand up to Jewish hate.”
The post Robert Kraft’s Super Bowl LIX Commercial to Help Combat Hatred Features Snoop Dogg and Tom Brady first appeared on Algemeiner.com.