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
Attempted Arson at Same Paris Kosher Market Which Was Attacked in 2015
Shoppers enter the Hyper Cacher in the 20th arrondissement of Paris, Jan. 7, 2019. Photo: Stephen Caillet / Reuters.
An arson attack occurred on Thursday outside a kosher shop in Paris—the same market where four Jews were murdered in 2015—amid an ongoing surge in antisemitic incidents in France.
The incident occurred around 3 a.m. outside the Hyper Cacher store after unidentified individuals set fire to nearby dumpsters.
While no injuries were reported and the interior of the shop remained unharmed, the fire damaged the exterior of the establishment, leaving a side wall covered in soot, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
Local police have opened an investigation for “willful damage by fire” and are treating the case as an act of vandalism, but have not indicated any suspicion of an antisemitic motive.
In 2015, a jihadist terrorist murdered four Jews at the Hyper Cacher, just days after his accomplices murdered 12 people at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine.
Since then, annual commemorations are held outside the shop — the facade of which remained undamaged in the fire — to honor the victims of the attack.
After the attack this week, the European Jewish Congress (EJC) issued a statement that did not label the incident as antisemitic, but described it as “yet another reminder of the persistent threats Jewish communities face.”
EJC is “deeply troubled by the arson attack on the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris, a site forever marked by the tragic 2015 hostage crisis,” the statement reads. “Authorities must ensure that those responsible are swiftly brought to justice.”
This assault comes amid a recent rise in antisemitic incidents across France. Earlier this month, a man was attacked after being insulted with antisemitic slurs, while a woman on her way to Hebrew class was also physically attacked.
Both of the incidents happened in Villeurbanne, which is home to the second-largest Jewish community in France.
In response to the rise in antisemitism, the city’s mayor, Cédric Van Styvendael of the Socialist Party, strongly condemned the attacks and expressed his support for the victims.
Both victims have filed complaints, and there are ongoing investigations into these attacks. Local police have yet to identify the person responsible for the attack on the woman. She was physically assaulted by another woman wearing a veil, who called her a “dirty Jew” while walking to her Hebrew class.
As for the attack on the man, a suspect was arrested following the release of city surveillance footage. Local police have launched an investigation into the incident for “aggravated violence” and “antisemitic comments.”
According to the victim’s report, the attack occurred after a traffic accident. The assailant physically assaulted him, hurling antisemitic insults, calling him a “zionist,” a “dirty Jew,” and blaming him for the “massacre in Gaza.”
Based on hospital records, the victim suffered a triple fracture in his arm and multiple bruises.
Antisemitism in France continued to surge to alarming levels across the country last year, with 1,570 incidents recorded, according to a report by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) – the main representative body of French Jews.
The total number of antisemitic outrages last year was a slight dip from 2023’s record total of 1,676, but it marked a striking increase from the 436 antisemitic acts recorded in 2022.
The post Attempted Arson at Same Paris Kosher Market Which Was Attacked in 2015 first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Sit Down With Social Media Personality Who Defended Hamas, Hezbollah
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are seen before a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2024. Photo: Craig Hudson/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) raised eyebrows on Thursday by agreeing to participate in an interview with controversial anti-Israel media personality Hasan Piker.
Ahead of a joint appearance at a public rally, the duo sat with the political Twitch streamer to discuss issues affecting the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States. Piker suggested that the Trump administration has stifled the free speech rights of anti-Israel advocates, pointing to the recent deportation attempt of former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.
Piker has an extensive history of repudiating Israel as an “apartheid state” and defending atrocities committed against its civilians. In a 2024 livestream, Piker minimized sexual assaults committed against Israeli women at the hands of Hamas, saying “it doesn’t matter if rapes f—ing happened on Oct. 7.” He has defended violence from the Hamas and Houthi terrorist groups as legitimate “resistance.” He has also said he doesn’t “have an issue with” the Hezbollah terrorist group, which had pummelled Israel with an unremitting barrage of missiles and rockets from the southern Lebanon border in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7.
Piker accused the Trump administration of mirroring tactics by Nazi Germany through engaging in censorship of those critical of the ongoing war in Gaza. He also blasted the White House over its attempt to “take control” of Columbia University’s Department of Middle Eastern Studies by placing it under an academic receivership. He warned that the Trump administration could use the “Palestine conversation” as an “entry point” to expand censorship across the United States.
In the immediate aftermath of the October 2023 massacre of roughly 1200 people throughout southern Israel by the Hamas terrorist group, Columbia University erupted in protest. Many student organizations issued statements placing blame on Israel for the terrorist attacks. Protesters called for the US to stop providing military aid to Israel and for Columbia University to divest from Israeli interests. In addition, Jewish students reported intimidation, harassment, and isolation on campus.
In a letter issued to Columbia earlier this month, the Trump administration directed the Ivy League university to establish a formal definition of antisemitism, prohibit masks “intended to conceal identity or intimidate,” and place its departments of African Studies, South Asian, and Middle Eastern studies under “academic receivership,” which would place them under independent oversight.
Ocaio-Cortez (AOC), one of the most strident opponents of Israel in Congress, defended Khalil, arguing that his raucous protests on Columbia’s campus were an example of “free speech.” She added that there is “profound money and interest that remains dedicated on both sides of the aisle” attempting to “conflate criticism of Israel as antisemitism.”
AOC has an extensive history of using her platform to criticize Israel. In the 17 months following the Oct. 7 attacks, the firebrand progressive has accused Israel of committing a “genocide” against Palestinians and practicing “apartheid.” She has repeatedly called for the implementation of a full “arms embargo” against Israel, which would deprive the Jewish state of weapons needed to complete its military objectives in Gaza. Nonetheless, AOC has come under fire from progressive organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for supporting a House resolution which affirmed Israel’s “right to exist.”
The post Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Sit Down With Social Media Personality Who Defended Hamas, Hezbollah first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why Deportation of Dr. Rasha Alawieh Is Justified
Demonstration in support of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, Monday, March 17, 2025, at the Rhode Island State Capitol Building. Green banner on right with white Arabic lettering reads, “From Gaza to Beirut, the Intifada Will Never Die!” Photo: Screenshot
The US Department of Homeland Security on Monday issued a simple statement of the “commonsense security” considerations that led to the deportation of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a kidney transplant nephrologist in Brown University’s Division of Kidney Disease.
“Last month, Rasha Alawieh traveled to Beirut, Lebanon, to attend the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah — a brutal terrorist who led Hezbollah, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade terror spree,” the statement read. “Alawieh openly admitted to this to CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) officers, as well as her support of Nasrallah. A visa is a privilege, not a right — glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied. This is commonsense security.”
Multiple media outlets that were given access to Alawieh’s immigration proceeding documents have elaborated on her fawning admiration of Nasrallah — the long-time leader of the Iran-backed, Lebanon-based jihad terrorist group Hezbollah who called for the annihilation of Jews — as a “spiritual leader.” Alawieh, a Shiite Muslim, reportedly declared, “If you listen to one of his [Nasrallah’s] sermons, you would know what I mean. He is a religious, spiritual person … His teachings are about spirituality and morality.”
I was a very active clinical kidney transplantation researcher who worked for almost 20 years in the Brown University Division of Kidney Disease. Moreover, as a recognized scholar of jihadism and Islamic antisemitism, I have studied Nasrallah’s alleged “spirituality and morality” and, understatedly, found it wanting.
Invoking antisemitic references from the Qur’an, Nasrallah characterized Jews as “apes and pigs” (Qur’an 5:60) and as “Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures” (Qur’an 2:96; 4:53; 59:13–14). He elaborated these themes into an annihilationist animus against all Jews, not merely Israelis”
Anyone who reads the Qur’an and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history … Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment … There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel … If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli … [I]f they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide [emphasis mine].
Nasrallah’s recent funeral in Beirut — which Alawieh attended, in reverence — was punctuated by the enormous throng of tens of thousands bellowing “death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
The Department of Homeland Security acted appropriately in deporting Alawieh, and I wholeheartedly endorse that decision. Particularly as a non-citizen visa holder, there is no place for Alawieh’s support of a vicious advocate of jihad terror, and mass-murdering Jew-hatred, in the US, let alone in American medicine.
I also denounce those feckless, morally blind medical “academics” who are seeking Alawieh’s return to the US and reinstatement at Brown University. A scene pathognomonic of their willful ignorance unfolded Monday evening, on the steps of Rhode Island’s State Capitol building. While Alawieh’s supporters including, sadly, former colleagues, stood enraptured facing the speaker’s location, adjacent to it, a group of women in hijabs held a green banner with white Arabic lettering that read, “From Gaza to Beirut, the Intifada Will Never Die!” The “Intifada” is synonymous with lethal jihad violence that targets non-combatant Israeli Jews, in fulfillment of Nasrallah’s “spiritual” Shiite Islamic religious ideology.
Finally, I am thoroughly disgusted with a recently retired colleague of 30 years, and former chief of the Brown Division of Kidney Disease, Dr. Douglas Shemin, who hired Alawieh and would not state categorically he would not have hired her had he known she was a disciple of Nasrallah!
Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS, is a retired Brown University academic internist and clinical epidemiologist, who is also the author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, and other books and essays on Islam. His non-medical research focus has been on the impact of Islamic conquest, colonization, and governance on non-Muslims.
The post Why Deportation of Dr. Rasha Alawieh Is Justified first appeared on Algemeiner.com.