Uncategorized
Why we’ll fight Israel’s new extremist political agenda with the determination of the Maccabees
(JTA) — The Book of Exodus tells us that the penultimate plague inflicted on Egypt, the plague of darkness, was one of the worst. The 16th-century Italian commentator Sforno, who lived in the aftermath of the Inquisition in Spain, wrote that the darkness went beyond the mere absence of light: It was a tangible darkness, a darkness you could feel. We can empathize as we feel the darkness of intolerance, hate, bigotry and zealotry today.
We kindle our lights during the eight days of Hanukkah to remember a time of darkness so bleak that the Maccabees, cruelly oppressed by Antiochus IV, could feel it. The Jews were a tiny minority in the expansive, ancient Greco-Syrian Empire. The Maccabees fought one of the earliest battles for religious freedom. Though they were vastly outnumbered, our ancient heroes remained courageous and determined.
Today, we recognize that no nation is immune to our era’s autocratic repression of democracy, human rights and civil rights. Battles against bigotry, hate and religious intolerance are being fought in too many places around the world, including in our beloved Israel. With the same determination as the Maccabees, we must fight for religious pluralism and equality in Israel with law and democracy as our weapons and drive out the darkness by bringing the light of equity, compassion and justice.
Loud voices within the new Israeli government are distinguished by their hatred for those who are not like them: non-Orthodox Jews, LGBTQ+ individuals, Palestinian-Israeli citizens, Palestinians, immigrants and others. The extremist political agenda of this new government is profoundly distressing, representing radical policy shifts that are antithetical to the core values of liberal Jews. We North American Jews can either walk away or lean in with all our might.
Some maintain that because the values that used to bind Jews in the Diaspora to the Jewish State are being replaced with extreme ultra-nationalist and ultra-Orthodox policies, it is time for liberal Jews to walk away from the Zionist project. This would be a terrible mistake: Zionism is more than what Israeli politicians say or do. Authentic Judaism is much more diverse and expansive than the restrictive definitions of the ultra-Orthodox Chief Rabbinate.
This is the moment for liberal Jews to fight even harder for the Jewish State envisioned in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Leaders of the new Israeli government are hoping that we will abandon Israel and allow them to create a new Israel that is divisive, tyrannical and tribalistic. This is why they fight us so bitterly at the Western Wall, and why they stymied the agreement that would have created an equitable prayer space at that holiest of Jewish sites.
We will not stand idly by while the most important project of contemporary Jewish life, the State of Israel, is led down the road of autocracy by extremists. Instead, we will renew our dedication to the State of Israel as a safe home for all her citizens and the democratic, pluralistic homeland of all Jewish people. We refuse to allow extremists to subvert religious equality in Israel.
The Reform and Conservative Jewish movements are growing in Israel, showing that Israelis yearn for a Judaism that is egalitarian, relevant, evolving and morally rigorous.
The progressive Zionism we embody is not reliant on the politicians or parties in power; rather, it is tied to the diverse people of Israel and the bedrock values of “freedom, justice and peace” upon which Israel was built and are enshrined in its Declaration of Independence. This is a critical time to invest our energy and resources in growing the pluralistic Jewish communities in Israel. The Israel Religious Action Center, our Reform movement’s social justice arm in Israel, is one such institution that is lighting the way for that just, secure and pluralistic Israel we envision and hold in our hearts.
Over the coming months, our Reform movement will bring thousands of North American Jews — teens, families, and adults — to experience the beauty and miracle of modern Israel while visiting and strengthening our allies throughout the land. The unity and security of the Jewish people matter immensely to us, and the well-being of the Jewish State is also our responsibility. These are two profound reasons why we will not stop standing up and fighting for the Israel we love.
We will not let the darkness overtake the light. The light shines brightly when we celebrate the many authentic ways our people live out their Jewish commitment. The light shines brightly whenever we are partisans for justice and compassion. As inaugural poet Amanda Gorman said, “There is always light. If only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it.”
Let this be said of us — this Hanukkah and every day.
—
The post Why we’ll fight Israel’s new extremist political agenda with the determination of the Maccabees appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.