Uncategorized
AIPAC’s gathering this week is focused on how to elect pro-Israel candidates in 2024
WASHINGTON (JTA) — With a new right-wing government in Israel raising alarm bells among many in the United States, the timing seemed ripe for a gathering by AIPAC, which regularly convenes bigwigs to talk about the U.S.-Israel relationship. But the group’s conference this week in Washington is focusing not on that relationship but on American electoral politics.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s “Political Leadership Forum” this week is closed to press. But it offers the latest signal of how the group’s activities have evolved from the days when its policy conferences were feel-good affairs that sought to elevate pro-Israel policy above nitty-gritty politicking.
The forum is bringing in “1,000 of our top political leaders to strategize for the 2024 election cycle,” an AIPAC official told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
It is the lobby’s first major gathering in Washington since the COVID-19 pandemic descended on the United States three years ago, just as the group was holding its 2020 conference. In the intervening years, AIPAC announced the establishment of two political action committees, ending a policy that had for decades been sacrosanct of keeping out of direct electoral politics.
“The meeting is an opportunity to review the results of the 2022 election and to inspire and equip our top activists as they prepare for the 2024 elections,” the official said. “They will hear from AIPAC leaders and top political practitioners about the political landscape the pro-Israel movement faces, and what they can do to continue and deepen their political involvement. As always, they will see how increased political involvement is an invaluable part of our efforts to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
AIPAC’s political action committees include a conventional PAC, AIPAC PAC, which relies on smaller donations, and a Super PAC, United Democracy Project, which has unlimited spending power. Together, the PACs raised over $50 million. The success rate was high, with UDP’s preferred candidates prevailing in eight of the 10 races it involved itself in, and AIPAC PAC backing 342 winners out of 365.
That made AIPAC a force to be reckoned with in a shifting political landscape, but directly backing candidates also exacted a price at a complicated time in the history of U.S.-Israel relations. Liberals faulted AIPAC for backing more than 100 Republicans who would not certify Joe Biden’s presidential election even after a deadly insurrection aimed at keeping Congress from doing so. Conservatives wondered why AIPAC was backing Democrats who backed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal so reviled by AIPAC.
A theme of the get-together this week was how to navigate that polarized environment. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, joined Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, to discuss maintaining bipartisan support for Israel, at a time when a vocal Israel-critical minority maintains a degree of influence among Democrats. “We are working to make sure that the U.S.-Israel relationship remains bipartisan and durable,” Gottheimer said. Gottheimer and Fitzpatrick co-chair the bipartisan Problem-Solvers Caucus.
There was policy as well, with a video conference address by Israel’s freshly elected prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and one in person by Lloyd Austin, the U.S. defense secretary. Netanyahu suggested in his remarks that differences with Democrats over Iran policy were no longer as sharp as they were when Netanyahu faced down President Barack Obama in 2015 over the Iran nuclear deal. (AIPAC’s opposition to the deal at the time spurred a similar fly-in of top activists in a failed bid to quash it in Congress.).
“It’s time to close ranks between Israel and the United States — and others,” Netanyahu said of the Iran issue. “And I look forward to discussing this issue with President Biden and his team. I think there is more of a meeting of the minds today than there has ever been.”
President Joe Biden initially sought to revive the deal, which former President Donald Trump quit in 2018, but those plans are moribund because of Iran’s deadly repression of pro-woman protests and its support for Russia in its war against Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is carefully monitoring the moves made by Netanyahu’s new government, formed in coalition with right-wing extremist parties. The government is seeking to diminish the country’s judiciary, and some of its leaders are aggressively pursuing the annexation of the West Bank — a move that the Biden administration opposes.
Neither Netanyahu nor Gottheimer addressed Israel’s current political climate in the partial remarks that were released by their offices.
AIPAC shuttered its springtime policy conferences, which attracted more than 15,000 people, after its conference in March 2020 drew unwanted attention because of two of the conference-goers appeared to be spreaders of the then-unfamiliar COVID 19 virus. It has created a structure of videoconferences and smaller local get-togethers as a substitute and has not scheduled large gatherings even as other groups have resumed their pre-pandemic conventions Still, it has not counted out reviving the conferences.
—
The post AIPAC’s gathering this week is focused on how to elect pro-Israel candidates in 2024 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
In Brigitte Bardot, a complicated legacy of movie stardom, activism, xenophobia and antisemitism
The French actress Brigitte Bardot, who died Sunday at the age of 91, leaves behind a legacy as an actress who starred in a few notable and many less than notable films. Perhaps more importantly, Bardot also starred as BB (pronounced, bien sûr, as “baby”), a cultural icon who embodied the glories and miseries of a rapidly modernizing postwar France.
Life is short, art is long, and politics is, at times, even longer. At least, this is true for the life of Bardot. Bardot burst upon the world stage in 1956 with élan (and an ellipsis) upon the release of “Et Dieu…créa la femme” and made her last film “L’Histoire très bonne et très joyeuses de Colinot” in 1973. This makes for a movie career that spanned 17 years. If we were than to subtract 1973 from 2025, we get 52 years.
But during the 52 years Bardot lived following her retirement from cinema, the world witnessed a different kind of spectacle, one which shifted from the aesthetics of Bardot as a pop phenomenon during the 1950s — she was described by Simone de Beauvoir, in an Esquire essay, as “the most perfect specimen of the ambiguous nymph” — to Bardot’s downwardly spiraling politics in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
A starting point to think about Bardot and politics — or, better yet, ideology — is 1969. While France was still reeling from the student rebellion of 1968, an event that nearly brought down the government of Charles de Gaulle, Bardot was named as the model for “Marianne,” a mythic figure who was, and remains, the personification of the French republic built on the revolutionary values of 1789.
Bardot remained the model for several years, with postage stamps of her likeness on countless envelopes and busts in city halls across the country. In 1985, however, Catherine Deneuve became the face of Marianne. The two stars tended to play very different kinds of roles in their films: Bardot’s barely tamed sexuality contrasted sharply with the mesmerizing iciness of many of Deneuve’s characters.
As time passed, the two Mariannes revealed very different political values. In 1971, Deneuve signed the history-changing “Manifesto of 343 Women,” which supported the legalization of abortion, and has spent her life in the republican camp — an opponent of the death penalty and a part of the “republican wall” formed against Jean-Marie Le Pen during the 2002 presidential elections.
Meanwhile, Bardot’s politics veered ever more rightward until they could veer no further. In 1992, Bardot attended a dinner in Saint-Tropez — the sleepy Provençal port she turned into, well, Saint-Tropez — hosted by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s second wife, Jany Le Pen. Another guest was Jean d’Ormale, a shadowy businessman and a close advisor of Le Pen, who soon became Bardot’s fourth and final husband. Bowled over by Bardot, Le Pen recalled, “Compared to Bardot, Marilyn Monroe looked like a bar waitress.” He added that he and Bardot had much in common: “She loves animals and misses the France that was clean and proper.”
In her own memoir B.B., Bardot returned Le Pen’s compliment. He was, she wrote, “a charming and intelligent man who was revolted by many of the same things I was.” For the next two decades, Bardot’s righteous campaign against animal cruelty was entwined with her noxious campaign against Muslim immigrants. Her hatred of the Muslim preparation of halal meat transmogrified into a hatred of Muslims, period. From the late 1990s and late 2000s, Bardot, who persistently railed against the Muslim “invasion” of France, was convicted several times by French courts of inciting racial hatred.
Inevitably, her visceral loathing of ritual slaughter bled into antisemitism. In 2014, Bardot was widely criticized for her description of kosher and halal traditions as “ritual sacrifice.” Moshe Kantor, the president of the European Jewish Congress, ripped into this phrase, declaring it was “deeply offensive and a slur against the Jewish people.” Kantor noted that while Bardot “may well be concerned for the welfare of animals, her long-standing support for the far right and for discrimination against minorities in France shows a constant disdain for human rights instead.”
In a eulogy posted on X, President Emmanuel Macron observed that “with her films, her voice, her dazzling glory, her initials (BB), her sorrows, her generous passion for animals, and her face that became Marianne, Brigitte Bardot embodied a life of freedom…We mourn a legend of the century.” All of this is true, but it is equally true that BB embodied yet other sorrows and passions that cast a lengthening and darkening shadow over this century.
The post In Brigitte Bardot, a complicated legacy of movie stardom, activism, xenophobia and antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Putin and Trump Do Not Support European-Ukrainian Temporary Ceasefire Idea, the Kremlin Says
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Photo: Reuters/Maxim Shemetov
The Kremlin said on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump do not support a European-Ukrainian push for a temporary ceasefire ahead of a settlement, and that Moscow thinks Kyiv needs to make a decision on Donbas.
Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said that a call between Putin and Trump lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes and took place at the request of Trump ahead of Trump’s meeting in Miami with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
“The main thing is that the presidents of Russia and the United States hold similar views that the option of a temporary ceasefire proposed by the Ukrainians and the Europeans under the pretext of preparing for a referendum or under other pretexts only leads to a prolongation of the conflict and is fraught with renewed hostilities,” Ushakov said.
Ushakov said that for hostilities to end, Kyiv needed to make a “bold decision” in line with Russian-US discussions on Donbas.
“Given the current situation on the fronts, it would make sense for the Ukrainian regime to make this decision regarding Donbas.”
Russia, which controls 90 percent of Donbas, wants Ukraine to withdraw its forces from the 10 percent of the area that Kyiv’s forces still control. Overall, Russia controls about a fifth of Ukraine.
Trump has repeatedly promised to end the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two and his envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner have been negotiating with Russia, Ukraine and European powers.
Ukraine and its European allies are worried that Trump could sell out Ukraine and leave European powers to foot the bill for supporting a devastated Ukraine after Russian forces took 12-17 square km (4.6-6.6 square miles) of Ukraine per day in 2025.
“Donald Trump listened attentively to Russian assessments of the real prospects for reaching an agreement,” Ushakov said.
“Trump persistently pursued the idea that it was really necessary to end the war as soon as possible, and spoke about the impressive prospects for economic cooperation between the United States and Russia and Ukraine that were opening up,” Ushakov said.
Uncategorized
Zelensky to Meet Trump in Florida for Talks on Ukraine Peace Plan
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 17, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump will meet in Florida on Sunday to forge a plan to end the war in Ukraine, but face differences over major issues, including territory, as Russian air raids pile pressure on Kyiv.
Russia hit the capital and other parts of Ukraine with hundreds of missiles and drones on Saturday, knocking out power and heat in parts of the capital. On Saturday, during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Nova Scotia, Zelensky called it Russia’s response to the US-brokered peace efforts.
Zelensky has told journalists that he plans to discuss the fate of eastern Ukraine’s contested Donbas region during the meeting at Trump’s Florida residence, as well as the future of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and other topics.
The Ukrainian president and his delegation arrived in Florida late on Saturday, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsya said on X.
RUSSIA CLAIMS MORE BATTLEFIELD ADVANCES
Moscow has repeatedly insisted that Ukraine yield all of the Donbas, even areas still under Kyiv’s control, and Russian officials have objected to other parts of the latest proposal, sparking doubts about whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would accept whatever Sunday’s talks might produce.
Putin said on Saturday Moscow would continue waging its war if Kyiv did not seek a quick peace. Russia has steadily advanced on the battlefield in recent months, claiming control over several more settlements on Sunday.
The Ukrainian president told Axios on Friday he hopes to soften a US proposal for Ukrainian forces to withdraw completely from the Donbas. Failing that, Zelensky said the entire 20-point plan, the result of weeks of negotiations, should be put to a referendum.
A recent poll suggests that Ukrainian voters may reject the plan.
Zelensky’s in-person meeting with Trump, scheduled for 1 p.m. (1800 GMT), follows weeks of diplomatic efforts. European allies, while at times cut out of the loop, have stepped up efforts to sketch out the contours of a post-war security guarantee for Kyiv that the United States would support.
On Sunday, ahead of his meeting with Trump, Zelensky said he held a detailed phone call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Trump and Zelensky were also expected to hold a phone call with European leaders during their Florida meeting, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian president said on Sunday.
STICKING POINTS OVER TERRITORY
Kyiv and Washington have agreed on many issues, and Zelensky said on Friday that the 20-point plan was 90% finished. But the issue of what territory, if any, will be ceded to Russia remains unresolved.
While Moscow insists on getting all of the Donbas, Kyiv wants the map frozen at current battle lines.
The United States, seeking a compromise, has proposed a free economic zone if Ukraine leaves the area, although it remains unclear how that zone would function in practical terms.
It has also proposed shared control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, where power line repairs have begun after another local ceasefire brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency said on Sunday.
Zelensky, whose past meetings with Trump have not always gone smoothly, worries along with his European allies that Trump could sell out Ukraine and leave European powers to foot the bill for supporting a devastated nation, after Russian forces took 12 to 17 square km (4.6-6.6 square miles) of its territory per day in 2025.
Russia controls all of Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, and since its invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago has taken control of about 12 percent of its territory, including about 90 percent of Donbas, 75 percent of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and slivers of the Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions, according to Russian estimates.
Putin said on December 19 that a peace deal should be based on conditions he set out in 2024: Ukraine withdrawing from all of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and Kyiv officially renouncing its aim to join NATO.
Ukrainian officials and European leaders view the war as an imperial-style land grab by Moscow and have warned that if Russia gets its way with Ukraine, it will one day attack NATO members.
The 20-point plan was spun off from a Russian-led 28-point plan, which emerged from talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev, and which became public in November.
Subsequent talks between Ukrainian officials and U.S. negotiators have produced the more Kyiv-friendly 20-point plan.