Uncategorized
A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Major American Jewish organizations that hoped to send a unified message about the turmoil in Israel yesterday instead found themselves tussling, partly in the public eye, about what exactly they wanted to say.
Should they praise the massive anti-government protests that have taken shape in recent months? Should they criticize Israel’s sitting government? What, if anything, should they endorse as a next step in the ongoing crisis?
Five large Jewish organizations — all known for their vocal pro-Israel advocacy — began Monday afternoon trying to answer those questions in a unified voice that sent a positive message: praise for a decision to pause the government’s divisive judicial overhaul.
Instead, in a somewhat messy process that unfolded over the course of the afternoon, they ended up sending out a number of different statements that contrasted in subtle yet telling ways. The scramble to publish a statement reflecting consensus — and the resulting impression that consensus was lacking — was a reflection of how Israel’s politics have created a rift in the U.S. Jewish establishment.
For decades, large American Jewish groups have publicly supported Israel’s foreign policy, and mostly stayed quiet on its domestic conflicts. Now, a domestic policy issue threatening to tear Israel apart has compelled at least some of them to do two unusual things: opine on Israel’s internal affairs, and publicly chide the government that, in their view, is responsible for the crisis.
“For a long time any criticism of Israel, even criticism of very difficult policies, was thought to be disloyal, and couldn’t be spoken out of love,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which was not a signatory to the statement but is a constituent of the group that organized it. “I think we now understand that there’s plenty of legitimate criticism and activism that comes from that very place.”
The five groups that began composing the statement together were the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. All have historically been seen as centrist, pro-Israel and representative of the American Jewish establishment, speaking for American Jews in international forums and in meetings with elected officials. All have annual budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Any vocal criticism from those groups has largely been limited to Israel’s treatment of non-Orthodox Jews. Because most American Jews are themselves not Orthodox, American Jewish groups have felt more comfortable advocating for policies that, they believe, will allow more of their constituents to feel welcome in the Jewish state.
But events this year have prompted the groups to speak out on another Israeli domestic issue: the judicial overhaul being pushed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to sap the Israeli Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. The court has, in the past, defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel such as women, the non-Orthodox, Arabs and the LGBTQ community.
“The recognition that what happens in Israel, the policies of the Israeli government and a broader range of issues in this particular case — on judicial reform, the perception of Israel as a vibrant democracy for all of its citizens — that perception has a significant impact on American Jewish life and American Jewish engagement,” said Gil Preuss, CEO of Washington, D.C.’s Jewish federation.
Most of the five groups had previously endorsed calls for compromise on the judicial reform proposal. The federations had also come out against one of its key elements. So when Netanyahu announced on Monday — in the face of widespread protests and dissent from allies — that he would pause the legislative push to allow time for dialogue, they all hoped to express their support.
What to write after that sentiment, however, proved contentious. A version of the statement put out by the American Jewish Committee included sharp criticism of Israeli politicians that was not in the other statements.
The Jewish Federations of North America sent out an addendum to the statement that was sympathetic to anti-Netanyahu protesters.
And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ultimately opted out of the statement altogether — but not before a version had already been released in its name.
None of the five groups responded to requests for comment on the process behind the statement, but insiders said the differences between the statements, and AIPAC’s opting out, had little to do with policy differences. Instead, they blamed the confusion on missteps in the rush to get the statement out in the minutes after Netanyahu’s remarks, which aired in Israel at 8 p.m. and in the early afternoon on the East Coast, where all of the groups are based.
The statement that ultimately appeared, after declaring that the groups “welcome the Israeli government’s suspension” of the reforms, said that the raucous debate and protests over the legislation were “painful to watch” but also “a textbook case of democracy in action.”
A key line included rare advice to Israel from the establishment Jewish groups: “As a next step, we encourage all Knesset factions, coalition and opposition alike, to use this time to build a consensus that includes the broad support of Israeli civil society.”
The Conference of Presidents was the first to release the statement, just past 2 p.m., less than an hour after Netanyahu had completed his remarks. It listed its co-endorsers as the AJC, the ADL and JFNA.
Five minutes later, the AJC put out a version of the same statement that added AIPAC to the endorsers. It included the same sentence offering advice, plus another two that added criticism and a caution: “Israel’s political leaders must insist on a more respectful tone and debate. A hallmark of democracy is public consensus and mutual consideration.”
Statements from JFNA and ADL, which went out subsequently, hewed to the Conference of Presidents version. An AIPAC official told JTA that the group did not want to sign onto the statement because it had wanted more time to add edits.
Just before 3 p.m., more than 40 minutes after its initial email, AJC sent out an email advising recipients that its inclusion of AIPAC was an error.
But its new statement still included the line criticizing politicians, which the other groups had eschewed. In the end, AJC removed that line, too: It is absent from the version of the statement posted on the group’s website.
AIPAC ultimately settled on posting a tweet that stuck to praising Israel for its democratic process, without further comment.
“For many weeks, Israelis have engaged in a vigorous debate reflective of the Jewish state’s robust democracy,” it said. “Israel’s diverse citizenship is showcasing its passionate engagement in the democratic process to determine the policies that will guide their country.”
JFNA, in an explanatory email to its constituents attached to the joint statement, was more pointed in its criticism of Netanyahu. On Sunday night, the prime minister had summarily fired his defense minister, Yoav Galant, for publicly advocating a pause on the legislation. That decision sparked protests across Israel, which in turn prompted Netanyahu to announce exactly the same pause and compromise that Gallant had proposed.
“The response across Israeli society was immediate and angry,” said the email signed by Julie Platt, the chairwoman of JFNA, and Eric Fingerhut, its CEO. “Spontaneous protests gathered in the streets and commentators expressed shock at a decision to fire a Defense Minister for having expressed concern about the risks to the country’s military position … Netanyahu’s own lawyer in his corruption trial announced that he could no longer represent him.”
The groups weren’t alone in releasing pained statements about Israel’s volatility — which has also stirred anguish among groups that have previously defended the Israeli right.
This week, Rabbi Moshe Hauer of the Orthodox Union, who met earlier this month with far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, praised Israel’s leaders for “the recognition of the value of taking time, engaging with each other with honesty and humility, and proceeding to build consensus.” (Smotrich, for his part, supports the overhaul and opposed pausing the legislation.)
“Our Sages taught, ‘Peace is great; discord is despised’,” Hauer, the group’s executive director, said in an emailed statement to JTA. “We are deeply shaken by the upheaval and discord that has gripped our beloved State of Israel. In recent weeks, the Jewish tradition and the democratic value of vigorous debate have been replaced by something very dangerous and different.”
The two largest non-Orthodox movements were open about their opposition to the overhaul. “We believe ardently that the proposed judicial reform is fraught with danger and goes against the principles of democracy,” the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly said in a statement Tuesday.
A statement from the leadership of the Reform movement, including Jacobs, castigated Netanyahu for agreeing to create a national guard under the authority of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, and for being “willing to risk the safety and security of Israel’s citizens to keep himself and his coalition in power.”
That strong language, Jacobs suggested, reflects the wishes of those who fund establishment Jewish groups and congregations. He said those groups were hearing from donors whose frustration with the Netanyahu government is reaching a boiling point.
“I hear of donors telling organizations, ‘I have to tell you, I don’t hear your voice, speaking out in favor of Israel’s democracy at this very vulnerable moment. So I’ll tell you what, why don’t you hang on to my phone number when you find your voice?’”
—
The post A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Iran Supreme Leader Says Will Not Yield as Protests Simmer and US Threatens
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran January 3, 2026. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed not to yield after US President Donald Trump threatened to come to the aid of protesters, as rights groups reported a sharp rise in arrests following days of unrest sparked by soaring inflation.
Speaking in a recorded appearance on Saturday, Khamenei said the Islamic Republic “will not yield to the enemy” and that rioters should be “put in their place.”
State-affiliated media reported three deaths on Saturday, with rights groups saying more than 10 had already died in demonstrations across Iran since Sunday as the collapsing rial currency hits an economy already undermined by sanctions.
ECONOMIC CRISIS
Videos circulating on social media, which Reuters could not immediately verify, purported to show protests in southern and western Iran. In one, marchers called on other Iranians to come onto the streets, chanting “We don’t want spectators: join us”.
Mehr and Fars news agencies, both state affiliated, reported that a security forces member and two demonstrators were killed in Malekshahi, a western town, when what they called armed protesters tried to enter a police station.
Authorities have attempted to maintain a dual approach to the unrest, saying protests over the economy are legitimate and will be met by dialogue, while meeting some demonstrations with tear gas amid violent street confrontations.
“The bazaaris were right. They are right to say they cannot do business in these conditions,” said Khamenei, referring to market traders’ concerns over the currency slide.
“We will speak with the protesters but talking to rioters is useless. Rioters should be put in their place,” he added.
Reports of violence have centered on small cities in Iran’s western provinces, where several people have been killed, according to state media and rights groups. Authorities have said two members of the security services had died and more than a dozen were injured in the unrest.
Hengaw, a Kurdish rights group, said late on Friday that it had identified 133 people arrested, an increase of 77 from the previous day.
Trump on Friday said the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go” but did not specify what action it might take against Iran, where it carried out airstrikes last summer, joining an Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear sites and military leaders.
The threat of action adds to the pressure on Iran’s leaders as they navigate one of the most difficult periods in decades, with the sanctions-hit economy shrinking and the government struggling to provide water and electricity in some regions.
Iran has suffered a succession of major strategic blows to its regional position since the start of the war in Gaza in 2023 between its ally Hamas and Israel.
Israeli strikes hammered Iran’s strongest regional partner Hezbollah. Tehran’s close ally Bashar al-Assad was ousted in Syria. The Israeli and US assault strikes on Iran set back the expensive atomic program and killed senior military leaders, revealing extensive penetration of Tehran’s upper echelons.
FLARING VIOLENCE
The protests are the biggest since mass nationwide demonstrations in late 2022 over the death in custody of Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini. This week’s demonstrations have not matched those in scale, but still represent the toughest domestic test for authorities in three years.
Rights groups such as Hengaw and activists posting on social media reported continued protests and violence by security forces across Iran, while state-affiliated media reported what it called attacks on property by infiltrators “in the name of protest.”
State television reported arrests in western and central Iran and near the capital Tehran, including of people accused of manufacturing petrol bombs and home-made pistols.
Numerous social media posts overnight said there had been unrest in a number of cities and towns, as well as three districts of Tehran.
Reuters could not immediately verify the reports by rights groups, state media or social media accounts.
Uncategorized
Trump Says US Oil Companies Will Spend Billions in Venezuela
A photograph posted by US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social account shows him sitting next to CIA Director John Ratcliffe and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as they watch the US military operation in Venezuela, January 3, 2026. Photo: @realDonaldTrump/Handout via REUTERS
President Donald Trump said that American oil companies were prepared to enter Venezuela and invest to restore production in the South American country, an announcement that came just hours after Nicolás Maduro was captured and removed by US forces.
“We’re going to have our very large US oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said on Saturday.
While Chevron is the only American major with current operations in Venezuela, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, among others, have storied histories in the country. The American Petroleum Institute, the largest US oil trade group, said on Saturday it was monitoring the emerging situation.
“We’re closely watching developments involving Venezuela, including the potential implications for global energy markets,” an API spokesperson told Reuters.
Chevron, which exports around 150,000 bpd of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, said it is focused on the safety and wellbeing of its employees, in addition to the integrity of its assets.
“We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” a Chevron spokesperson said in an emailed response to questions.
Top oilfield service companies SLB, Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Weatherford did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Exxon and Conoco did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters.
Trump’s plans to have large US oil companies enter Venezuela and get “oil flowing” will be hindered by lack of infrastructure that will require many years and heavy investment, analysts said. “There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around,” said Peter McNally, Global Head of Sector Analysts at Third Bridge, adding that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country.
A US embargo on all Venezuelan oil, meanwhile, remains in full effect, Trump said. He told reporters that the US military forces would remain in position until US demands had been fully met.
“The American armada remains poised in position, and the US retains all military options until United States demands have been fully met and fully satisfied,” he said.
Uncategorized
US Captures Venezuela’s Maduro, Trump Says US Will Run the Country
Smoke rises near Fort Tiuna during a full blackout, following explosions and loud noises, after U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas, Venezuela, January 3, 2026. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
The US attacked Venezuela and deposed its long-serving President Nicolas Maduro in an overnight operation on Saturday, President Donald Trump said, in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American might and competence in American history,” Trump said at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where he was flanked by senior officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Trump said Maduro was in custody and that American officials would take control of Venezuela.
“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said. “We can’t take a chance that someone else takes over Venezuela who doesn’t have the interests of Venezuelans in mind.”
POTENTIAL POWER VACUUM
It is unclear how Trump plans to oversee Venezuela. Despite a dramatic overnight operation that knocked out electricity in part of Caracas and captured Maduro in or near one of his safe houses, US forces have no control over the country itself, and Maduro’s government appears to still be in charge.
The removal of Maduro, who led Venezuela with a heavy hand for more than 12 years, potentially opens a power vacuum in the Latin American country. Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez — Maduro’s presumptive successor — is in Russia, four sources familiar with her movements said, stoking confusion about who is next in line to govern the South American country.
Russia’s foreign ministry said the report that Rodriguez is in Russia was “fake.”
Any serious destabilization in the nation of 28 million people threatens to hand Trump the type of quagmire that has marked US foreign policy for much of the 21st century, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq – which were also premised on regime change.
The US has not made such a direct intervention in its backyard region since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago to depose military leader Manuel Noriega over allegations that he led a drug-running operation. The United States has leveled similar charges against Maduro, accusing him of running a “narco-state” and rigging the 2024 election.
Maduro, a 63-year-old former bus driver handpicked by the dying Hugo Chavez to succeed him in 2013, has denied those claims and said Washington was intent on taking control of his nation’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.
VENEZUELAN OFFICIALS DECRY U.S. ACTION
The streets of Venezuela appeared calm as the sun rose. Soldiers patrolled some parts and some small pro-Maduro crowds began gathering in Caracas.
Others, however, expressed relief.
“I’m happy, I doubted for a moment that it was happening because it’s like a movie,” said merchant Carolina Pimentel, 37, in the city of Maracay. “It’s all calm now but I feel like at any moment everyone will be out celebrating.”
Venezuelan officials condemned Saturday’s intervention. “In the unity of the people we will find the strength to resist and to triumph,” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said in a video message.
While various Latin American governments oppose Maduro and say he stole the 2024 vote, direct US action revives painful memories of past interventions and is generally strongly opposed by governments and populations in the region.
Trump’s action recalls the Monroe Doctrine, laid out in 1823 by President James Monroe, laying US claim to influence in the region, as well as the “gunboat diplomacy” seen under Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s.
Venezuelan allies Russia, Cuba and Iran were quick to condemn the strikes as a violation of sovereignty. Tehran urged the UN Security Council to stop the “unlawful aggression.”
Among major Latin American nations, Argentina’s President Javier Milei lauded Venezuela’s new “freedom” while Mexico condemned the intervention and Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said it crossed “an unacceptable line.”