Uncategorized
Diaspora alarm over Israel: Your guide to what the critics are saying
(JTA) — I started reporting on North American Jews and Israel in the last century, and for years covered the debate over whether Jews in the Diaspora had a right to criticize the Israeli government in public. The debate sort of petered out in the early-1990s, when Israel itself began talking about a Palestinian state, and when right-wing groups then decided criticizing Israel was a mitzvah.
Nevertheless, while left-wing groups like J Street and T’ruah have long been comfortable criticizing the Israeli government or defending Palestinian rights, many in the centrist “mainstream” — pulpit clergy, leaders of federations and Hillels, average Jews nervous about spoiling a family get-together — have preferred to keep their concerns to themselves. Partly this is tactical: Few rabbis want to alienate any of their members over so divisive a topic, and in the face of an aggressive left, organizational leaders did not want to give fuel to Israel’s ideological enemies. (The glaring exception has been about Israeli policy toward non-Orthodox Judaism, which is seen as very much the Disapora’s business.)
In recent weeks, there has been an emerging literature of what I have come to think of as “reluctant dissent.” What these essays and sermons have in common, despite the different political persuasions of the authors, is a deep concern over Israel’s “democratic character.” They cite judicial reforms that would weaken checks and balances at the top, expansion of Jewish settlements that would make it impossible to separate from the Palestinians, and the Orthodox parties that want to strengthen their hold on religious affairs. As Abe Foxman, who as former director of the Anti-Defamation League rarely criticized Israel, told an interviewer, “If Israel ceases to be an open democracy, I won’t be able to support it.”
I read through the various ways Jewish leaders and writers here and in Israel are not just justifying Diaspora Jews who are protesting what is happening in Israel, but providing public permission for others to do the same. Here is what a few of them are saying (with a word from a defender of the government):
‘I didn’t sleep much last night’
Yehuda Kurtzer: Facebook, Feb. 8
Kurtzer is the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, the New York-based branch of the Israeli think tank that promotes a diverse, engaged relationship with Israel. In a recent blog post, he neatly describes the dilemma of Diaspora Zionists who aren’t sure what to do with their deep concerns about the direction of the Israel government, especially the concentration of power in a far-right legislative branch.
Centrist American Jews who care about Israel are caught between “those to our right who would see any expression of even uncertainty about Israel’s democratic character as disloyalty, [and] those on the other side who think that a conversation about Israeli democracy is already past its prime,” he writes. He is also concerned about the “widespread disengagement that we can expect among American Jews, what I fear will become the absent majority — those who decide that however the current crisis is resolved, all of this is just ‘not for them.’”
Kurtzer likens Israel to a palace, and Diaspora Jews as “passersby” who live beyond its walls. Nonetheless, he feels responsible for what happens there. “The palace is burning and the best we can do is to tell you,” he writes. “It is also how we will show you we love you, and how much we cherish the palace.”
An open letter to Israel’s friends in North America
Matti Friedman, Yossi Klein Halevi and Daniel Gordis: Times of Israel, Feb. 7
Three high-profile writers who moved to Israel from North America and who often defend Israel against its critics in the United States — Gordis, for one, has written a book arguing that American Jewish liberalism is incompatible with Israel’s “ethnic democracy” — now urge Diaspora Jews to speak out against the current Israeli government. They don’t mention the territories or religious pluralism. Instead, their trigger is the proposed effort to reform the Supreme Court, which they say will “eviscerate the independence of our judiciary and remake the country’s democratic identity.” Such a move will “threaten Israeli-American relations, and it will do grave damage to our relations with you, our sisters and brothers in the Diaspora,” concluding, “We need your voice to help us preserve Israel as a state both Jewish and democratic.”
All Israel Is Responsible for Each Other
Rabbi Angela Buchdahl: Sermon, Jan. 27
Buchdahl, the senior rabbi of New York City’s Reform Central Synagogue, isn’t looking to Israeli writers for permission to weigh in on Israel’s political scene. In a sermon that takes its name from a rabbinic statement of Jewish interdependence, she asserts without question that Jews everywhere have a stake in the future of Israel and have a right to speak up for “civil society and democracy and religious pluralism and human rights” there. She focuses on the religious parties who are convinced that “Reform Jews are ruining Israel,” as you might expect, but ends the sermon with a call to recognize the rights of all Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, “and also those living under Israel’s military control.” Of those Palestinians, she says, “We can’t feel comfortable sitting in the light of sovereignty next to a community living in darkness and expect to have peace.”
And like Kurtzer, she worries that concerned American Jews will simply turn away from Israel in despair or embarrassment, and urges congregants to support the Israeli and American organizations that share their pluralistic vision for Israel.
On That Distant Day
Hillel Halkin: Jewish Review of Books, Winter 2023
In his 1977 book “Letters to an American Jewish Friend: A Zionist Polemic,” the translator and author Hillel Halkin made a distinction similar to Kurtzer’s image of Israel as a palace and the Diaspora as passersby: Jews who don’t emigrate to Israel are dooming themselves to irrelevance, while immigrants like him are living on the stage where the Jewish future would play out. His mournful essay doesn’t address the Diaspora, per se, although it creates a permission structure for Zionists abroad to criticize the government. Halkin sees the new government as a coalition of two types of religious zealots: the haredi Orthodox who want to consolidate their control of religious life (and funding) in Israel, and a “knit-skullcap electorate [that] is hypernationalist and Jewish supremacist in its attitude toward Arabs.” (A knit skullcap is a symbol for what an American might call the “Modern Orthodox.”) Together, these growing and powerful constituents represent “the end of an Israeli consensus about what is and is not permissible in a democracy — and once the rules are no longer agreed on, political chaos is not far away. Israel has never been in such a place before.”
Halkin does talk about Israeli expansion in the West Bank, saying he long favored Jewish settlement in the territories, while believing that the “only feasible solution” would be a two-state solution with Arabs living in the Jewish state and Jews living in the Arab one. Instead, Israel has reached a point where there is “too much recrimination, too much distrust, too much hatred, too much blind conviction, too much disdain for the notion of a shared humanity, for such a solution to be possible… We’re over the cliff and falling, and no one knows how far down the ground is.”
Method to Our Madness: A Response to Hillel Halkin
Ze’ev Maghen: Jewish Review of Books, Jan. 10, 2023
Ze’ev Maghen, chair of the department of Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University, is hardly a dissenter; instead, his response to Halkin helpfully represents the views of those who voted for the current government. Maghen says the new coalition represents a more honest expression of Zionism than those who support a “liberal, democratic, egalitarian, inclusive, individualist, environmentally conscious, economically prosperous, globally connected, etc., etc., society.” The new government he writes, will defend Israel’s “Jewish nationalist raison d’être, and keep at bay those universalist, Western-based notions that are geared by definition to undermine nationalism in all its forms.” As for the Palestinian issue, he writes, “I’d rather have a fierce, hawkish Zionist in the cockpit than a progressive, Westernized wimp for whom this land, and the people who have returned to it after two millennia of incomparable suffering, don’t mean all that much.”
The Tears of Zion
Rabbi Sharon Brous: Sermon, Feb. 4, 2023
Brous, rabbi of the liberal Ikar community in Los Angeles, doesn’t just defend the right of Diaspora Jews to speak out in defense of Israeli democracy and Palestinian rights, but castigates Jewish leaders and communities who have been reluctant to criticize Israel in the past. “No, this government is not an electoral accident, and it is not an anomaly,” she says. “This moment of extremism has been a long time in the making and our silence has made us complicit.”
—
The post Diaspora alarm over Israel: Your guide to what the critics are saying appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Two Men Jailed in UK for Islamic State-Inspired Plot to Kill Hundreds of Jews
Weapons seized from the home of Walid Saadaoui, 38, who along with Amar Hussein, 52, has been found guilty at Preston Crown Court of plotting to kill hundreds in an Islamic State-inspired gun rampage against the Jewish community, in Britain, in this handout picture obtained by Reuters on December 23, 2025. They are due to be sentenced on Friday. Photo: Greater Manchester Police/Handout via REUTERS
Two men were jailed on Friday for plotting to kill hundreds in an Islamic State-inspired attack on the Jewish community in England, a plan prosecutors said could have been deadlier than December’s mass shooting at Sydney’s Bondi Beach.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, were both convicted after a trial at Preston Crown Court, which began a week after an unrelated deadly attack on a synagogue in the city of Manchester, in northwest England.
Prosecutors said the pair were Islamist extremists who wanted to use automatic firearms to kill as many Jews as they could in an attack in Manchester.
They were found guilty little more than a week after a mass shooting at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach in which 15 people were killed.
Prosecutor Harpreet Sandhu said on Friday that, had Saadaoui and Hussein carried out their plan, it “could have been very much more serious” than the attacks in Australia and Manchester.
Judge Mark Wall sentenced Saadaoui to a minimum term of 37 years and Hussein to a minimum term of 26 years, saying: “You were very close to being ready to carry out this plan.”
Hussein refused to attend his sentencing, having refused to attend most of his trial, which Wall said reflected Hussein’s cowardice, describing him as “brave enough to plan to threaten an unarmed group with an AK-47 but not sufficiently courageous to face up to what he did.”
POTENTIALLY ONE OF DEADLIEST ATTACKS ON UK SOIL
Saadaoui had arranged for two assault rifles, an automatic pistol and almost 200 rounds of ammunition to be smuggled into Britain through the port of Dover when he was arrested in May 2024, Sandhu told jurors at the trial.
He added that Saadaoui planned to obtain two more rifles and another pistol, and to collect at least 900 rounds of ammunition.
“This would likely have been one of the deadliest terrorist attacks ever carried out on British soil,” Wall said.
Unbeknown to Saadaoui, however, a man known as “Farouk,” from whom he was trying to get the weapons, was an undercover operative who helped foil the plot.
Walid Saadaoui’s brother Bilel Saadaoui, 37, was found guilty of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism. He was sentenced to six years in jail.
Uncategorized
African Union Summit Clouded by Saudi-UAE Rivalry in Horn of Africa
FILE PHOTO: A delegate walks next to African Union (AU) member states flags ahead of the 38th Ordinary Session of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union at the African Union Commission (AUC) headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, February 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/ Tiksa Negeri/File Photo
A feud between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates across the Horn of Africa is overshadowing this weekend’s African Union summit, though most of the continent’s leaders will try to avoid taking sides, nine diplomats and experts said.
What began as a rivalry in Yemen has spread across the Red Sea into a region riven with conflicts – from war in Somalia and Sudan to rivalry between Ethiopia and Eritrea and a divided Libya.
In recent years, the UAE has become an influential player in the Horn – encompassing primarily Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti – through multi-billion-dollar investments, robust diplomacy and discreet military support.
Saudi Arabia has been more low-profile but diplomats say Riyadh is building an alliance that includes Egypt, Turkey and Qatar.
“Saudi has woken up and realized that they might lose the Red Sea,” a senior African diplomat told Reuters. “They have been sleeping all along while UAE was doing its thing in the Horn.”
Initially focused on the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden – both crucial shipping routes, the rivalry is now reaching further inland.
“Today it is in Somalia, but it is also playing out in Sudan, Sahel and elsewhere,” the diplomat said.
COMPELLED TO CHOOSE A SIDE
While these conflicts have strong local drivers, Gulf involvement is forcing countries, regions and even warlords to choose a side, diplomats said.
Michael Woldemariam, a Horn of Africa expert at the University of Maryland, said regional actors, including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), have grown uneasy with the UAE’s “muscular” foreign policy.
“Saudis may seek to limit or curtail UAE in the Horn but, it remains to see how that will play out,” he said. “UAE has a lot of leverage across the region – it has this expeditionary military presence and dense financial linkages.”
Saudi officials say UAE activities in Yemen and the Horn threaten their national security.
Senior Emirati officials say their strategy strengthens states against extremists, while U.N. experts and Western officials argue it has sometimes fueled conflict and empowered authoritarian leaders, charges the UAE denies.
The officials and diplomats interviewed in this story declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.
AVOIDING A BRAWL BETWEEN GULF POWERS
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland’s independence bid is the starkest example so far of tensions being stoked.
Somalia has cut all ties with Abu Dhabi, accusing it of influencing Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. Mogadishu has since signed a defense agreement with Qatar, while Turkey sent fighter jets to the capital in a show of force.
Tensions are also rising between African Union host Ethiopia and neighboring Eritrea, which have been on the verge of war for months. Eritrea’s leader recently visited Saudi Arabia, a trip that analysts perceived as signaling Saudi backing.
UAE and Saudi Arabia back opposing sides in Sudan’s war, all the sources and experts interviewed said. The UAE is accused of providing logistical support to the RSF paramilitary, while states in line with Saudi Arabia largely back the SAF.
Egypt, a Saudi ally, has deployed Turkish-made drones along its border with SAF and used them to strike RSF in Sudan, security officials said.
Analysts said Ethiopia benefits from UAE support, and Reuters found this week that Ethiopia is hosting a base in western Ethiopia where RSF fighters are recruited and trained.
Ethiopia has not publicly commented on the story.
‘ACTING THROUGH ALLIES AND PROXIES’
Across the region, Saudi Arabia often acts through allies and proxies rather than directly, experts said.
Woldemariam said African countries were likely to tread carefully.
“Even those actors in the Horn who were alarmed by UAE influence may be cautious about how much they want to be caught up in a brawl between these two Gulf powers,” he said.
The Horn is not the only crisis on the AU summit’s agenda.
War continues in Democratic Republic of Congo, and al Qaeda- and Islamic State-linked insurgencies are spreading across the Sahel region.
But those conflicts are still likely to take a back seat to the Horn.
Alex Rondos, the EU’s former special representative for the region, said the Horn had become a subsidiary arena for Middle East rivalries.
“Do the Saudis and UAE … fully grasp the implications?” he said. “Will the Horn of Africa allow itself to be broken into pieces by these foreign rivalries and their African accomplices?”
Uncategorized
US Military Preparing for Potentially Weeks-Long Iran Operations
FILE PHOTO: An Iranian woman holding a poster depicting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei walks under a large flag during the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran, Iran February 11, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS/File Photo
The US military is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if President Donald Trump orders an attack, two US officials told Reuters, in what could become a far more serious conflict than previously seen between the countries.
The disclosure by the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the planning, raises the stakes for the diplomacy underway between the United States and Iran.
US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will hold negotiations with Iran on Tuesday in Geneva, with representatives from Oman acting as mediators. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned on Saturday that while Trump’s preference was to reach a deal with Tehran, “that’s very hard to do.”
Meanwhile, Trump has amassed military forces in the region, raising fears of new military action. US officials said on Friday the Pentagon was sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Middle East, adding thousands more troops along with fighter aircraft, guided-missile destroyers and other firepower capable of waging attacks and defending against them.
Trump, speaking to US troops on Friday at a base in North Carolina, openly floated the possibility of regime change in Iran, saying it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.” He declined to share who he wanted to take over Iran, but said “there are people.”
“For 47 years, they’ve been talking and talking and talking,” Trump said.
Trump has long voiced skepticism about sending ground troops into Iran, saying last year “the last thing you want to do is ground forces,” and the kinds of US firepower arrayed in the Middle East so far suggest options for strikes primarily by air and naval forces. In Venezuela, Trump demonstrated a willingness to rely also on special operations forces to seize that country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, in a raid last month.
Asked for comment on the preparations for a potentially sustained US military operation, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has all options on the table with regard to Iran.”
“He listens to a variety of perspectives on any given issue, but makes the final decision based on what is best for our country and national security,” Kelly said.
The Pentagon declined to comment.
The United States sent two aircraft carriers to the region last year, when it carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.
However, June’s “Midnight Hammer” operation was essentially a one-off US attack, with stealth bombers flying from the United States to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran staged a very limited retaliatory strike on a US base in Qatar.
RISKS INCREASING
The planning underway this time is more complex, the officials said.
In a sustained campaign, the US military could hit Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear infrastructure, one of the officials said. The official declined to provide specific detail.
Experts say the risks to US forces would be far greater in such an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. Retaliatory Iranian strikes also increase the risk of a regional conflict.
The same official said the United States fully expected Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes and reprisals over a period of time.
The White House and Pentagon did not respond to questions about the risks of retaliation or regional conflict.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and crushing of internal dissent. On Thursday, he warned the alternative to a diplomatic solution would “be very traumatic, very traumatic.”
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have warned that in case of strikes on Iranian territory, they could retaliate against any US military base.
The US maintains bases throughout the Middle East, including in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Trump for talks in Washington on Wednesday, saying that if an agreement with Iran were reached, “it must include the elements that are vital to Israel.”
Iran has said it is prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, but has ruled out linking the issue to missiles.