Uncategorized
He’s running? Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett gives off comeback vibes on a DC visit.
WASHINGTON (JTA) — He left office after one of the shortest terms of any prime minister in Israeli history and doesn’t have an active political party.
But just 10 months after stepping down from Israel’s highest position, and amid historic upheaval in Israel, Naftali Bennett is signaling that he’s ready to run again.
Bennett, formerly seen as a hardline right-wing politician, upended Israeli politics in 2021 by leading an ideologically diverse coalition that unseated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after 12 straight years in office. But Bennett’s coalition fell apart after about a year, he stepped down and Netanyahu won the subsequent election.
Now, far from home, Bennett is taking the public stage. On a visit to Washington, D.C., this week, Bennett spoke at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — a go-to destination for prominent Israeli politicians visiting the United States — took questions from reporters and met with a group of Democratic lawmakers. In a photo from that visit, Bennett appears in his element, explaining something to the group as a crowded room looks on.
“Today in a series of meetings with congressmen and congresswomen on the Hill as well as government officials,” he tweeted in Hebrew along with the photo. “It begins.”
What is beginning is not clear. Bennett wouldn’t answer a question about whether he will run again, and a spokeswoman did not respond to a request to elaborate. But his social media feed suggests that he’s missing being prime minister, and in remarks to reporters on Tuesday it sounded like he might shoot for the office again.
“I’ve become a huge believer that we need moderacy in the way we govern Israel for the next 10 years,” he said at a meeting organized by the Washington Institute, calling himself a “radical moderate.”
“I believe that Israel, for the next decade or two, we need centrist governments that can focus on 70% of the issues that Israelis agree upon, and setting aside that 30% of issues that are in ideological conflict,” Bennett said, repeating a formula he’s often used to describe his governing philosophy. “I think it’s the only way forward for the next 10 to 20 years. We have to pull ourselves out of this ongoing polarization and toxic dialogue. And I believe Israel can succeed by doing that.”
In another tweet, he noted polls showing him winning eight seats in Israel’s parliament were he to return to politics — more than the seven seats his former party, Yamina, won in 2021, before he became prime minister.
On Monday, the eve of Yom Hashoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, he posted a speech he delivered as prime minister last year, in which he extolled the virtue of Israel “relying only on ourselves to be strong, and to never apologize for our existence.”
Last week, prior to embarking on his stateside visit, he posted a Twitter thread favorably comparing his performance with Netanyahu’s. “As long as I can remember, I have taken responsibility,” he wrote, accusing Netanyahu and his top advisors of peddling “blame and excuses.” And in a video posted about a week earlier, marking the 100th day of Netanyahu’s current government, he touted the record of his coalition in its first 100 days last year, tweeting, “Something different is possible.” That tweet is now pinned to the top of his feed.
Netanyahu’s coalition has proposed a far-reaching overhaul of Israel’s judiciary that would sap the Supreme Court of much of its power, and which has spurred unprecedented street protests. Part of his mission in the United States, Bennett said at the Washington Institute meeting, was to push back against perceptions that the turmoil was weakening Israel.
“I see that our enemies believe that the protests are a sign of weakness,” Bennett said. “They are misinterpreting what Israel is about. This is a sign of strength, democracy in Israel will prevail, and Israel will come out stronger for all.”
However enthusiastic he may be, Bennett could have a long road to a comeback after emerging battered from his brief time as prime minister. For more than a decade, he had been a leading politician in the pro-settler camp, vehemently opposed to Palestinian statehood and seen as a right-wing influence on Netanyahu. For years, the two men worked together despite personal acrimony between them, but in 2021, Bennett took his party, whose name translated to “rightward” in English, and partnered with a motley crew of right-wing, centrist and left-wing parties, as well as an Islamist party.
Bennett’s former right-wing allies portrayed that decision as a betrayal, and multiple members of his own party defected, depriving his coalition of a parliamentary majority and leading to new elections. Bennett didn’t run and handed the prime ministership to his centrist coalition partner, Yair Lapid, who lost to Netanyahu last fall.
Lapid, who is now leader of the parliamentary opposition, appears to be getting a second wind from the massive antigovernment protests. A recent poll asking Israelis for their preferred prime minister showed him running neck and neck with Netanyahu. Another centrist politician, Benny Gantz, got even higher marks.
This poll didn’t ask about Bennett.
—
The post He’s running? Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett gives off comeback vibes on a DC visit. 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.