Uncategorized
How a once-cautious Benjamin Netanyahu came to lead the most radical coalition in Israel’s history
(JTA) — Twenty-seven years have passed since Benjamin Netanyahu was first elected as Israel’s prime minister. Since 1996, he has headed six governments over a period of more than 15 years, more than any other prime minister. Unfortunately, his current coalition is one of the most radical-populist governments in Israel’s history. This government seeks to rapidly undermine Israel’s democracy by granting unlimited political power to the executive branch of government at the expense of the judiciary.
How can Netanyahu — a U.S.-educated and respected world leader who was cautious in his approach to building previous coalitions, and was once respectful of Israeli democratic institutions — support such a dangerous plan? Was the “writing on the wall” earlier on in his lengthy tenure?
A glimpse into Netanyahu’s years in office reveals that, indeed, signs of his being a populist leader — specializing in attacks against the so-called elite — could be detected long ago. As Likud leader in 1993, Netanyahu was blamed for ignoring the incitement by extremists that preceded the assignation of Yitzhak Rabin (a charge he vociferously denies). As early as 1997, during his first term as prime minister, he said that “the left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” Two years later, during an election campaign, he mocked the “leftist” press by saying “they are scared” (by the possibility of a right-wing victory). On Election Day in 2015, he posted a video urging Likud supporters to go out and vote by warning, “the Arabs are heading in droves to the polls.” That message led to accusations that the candidate was using racial dog whistles to motivate his followers.
However, Netanyahu’s populist discourse and his natural divide-and-conquer leadership style were balanced out, at least until 2015, by several factors. First, Netanyahu always sought to include centrist and even left-of-center parties in his coalition governments. Even when he could build a “pure” right-wing coalition (following the 2009 elections, for example), he preferred to invite partners from the opposing political side. His intention, he once said, was to provide a “wide and stable government that unites the people.”
Second, despite his hawkish image and his hardline discourse on security issues, Netanyahu wa considered to be an exceedingly cautious leader in that arena. Risk-averse, he tended to avoid involving Israel in major wars and was wary of acting in ways that would spark violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
Third, over his many years in office, he had demonstrated respect for the rules of the game — and towards Israel’s Supreme Court. He even blocked earlier initiatives that sought to undermine the power of the judicial branch. “I believe that in a democracy, a strong and independent Court is what enables the existence of all other democratic institutions,” he said in 2012. “Every time a law comes across my desk that threatens to impair the independence of the courts, we will take it down.”
The 2015 elections should probably be regarded as the turning point, after which these balancing factors quickly gave way to unabashed populism. The unexpected resounding victory in that year’s elections brought out the hubris in Netanyahu. He formed a right-wing coalition government (only slightly moderated by Moshe Kahlon’s centrist Kulanu party), personally held four ministerial positions in addition to the prime ministership, and gave his blessing to the hugely controversial Nation-State Bill. This legislation, which anchored in law Israel’s status as the “national home of the Jewish people,” strengthened the Jewish component of Israel’s dual “Jewish and democratic” identity without in turn strengthening its democratic component — explicitly and implicitly downgrading minority rights.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s longtime obsession with controlling press coverage reached a new level. His insistence on personally heading the Ministry of Communications and his excessive involvement in media — for example, installing a close ally as director-general of the ministry, and targeting and strong-arming ostensibly “unfriendly” newspapers and broadcasters — served as the background for two of the three indictments for which he is currently on trial.
The investigations on corruption charges, and his subsequent trial, further pushed Netanyahu toward populist extremes. Following three rounds of elections between 2019 and 2020, which threw Israel into an unprecedented political crisis, Netanyahu was forced to form a unity government with former Gen. Benny Gantz’s centrist Blue & White party. Coincidentally, just a few hours after the government’s first meeting, Netanyahu’s trial began in the Jerusalem District Court. The prime minister arrived at the court on May 24, 2020, accompanied by several Likud Knesset members, and launched a fierce attack:
What is on trial today is an effort to frustrate the will of the people — the attempt to bring down me and the right-wing camp. For more than a decade, the left has failed to do this at the ballot box. So over the last few years, they have discovered a new method: some segments in the police and the prosecution have joined forces with the leftist media… to manufacture baseless and absurd charges against me.
These statements made it clear that Netanyahu had crossed the Rubicon, setting the tone for his behavior ever since. He dispensed with the partnership with Gantz, sacrificing Israel’s economic and political interests along with it. In the build-up to the next elections, he legitimized extremist, racist politicians such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who are today members of his governing coalition. After failing to form a government in 2021 (having been ousted from power after more than 12 consecutive years), he violated fundamental parliamentary conventions and norms. For instance, he instructed his right-wing allies to boycott Knesset committees and refused to attend the customary “update meeting” the parliamentary opposition leader holds with the prime minister. His previous respect for the rules of the game and democratic institutions was a thing of the past.
In that sense, it is no wonder that the current government he has formed, following his victory in the 2022 elections, is relentlessly pushing the overhaul of the judicial system, with little regard to the dangers the legislation poses to Israel’s democracy. This is due to a combination of Netanyahu’s own self-interest regarding his trial and the interests and worldviews of his political partners — politicians who hold extreme views (Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) as well as those who have previous corruption charges hanging over their heads (Aryeh Deri, leader of the haredi Orthodox Shas party).
The “old Bibi” would have never coalesced with such radical forces and would have never so bluntly disregarded democratic norms. But hubris, an instinct for self-preservation and his high self-regard as the “indispensable man” of Israeli politics created a new Bibi – and a crisis unlike anything Israel has ever seen.
Ironically, Netanyahu finds himself in an unexpected position — as the moderating force in the most radical coalition in Israel’s history. He could tap the instincts that he once had and be the voice of reason, the one who plugs the dike with his finger. He has the chance to lead Israel to a major constitutional moment. Will he rise to this historical challenge?
—
The post How a once-cautious Benjamin Netanyahu came to lead the most radical coalition in Israel’s history appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
A Saturday night in Portland, very close to the ICE building
ס׳איז געווען אַ שטילע נאַכט אין פּאָרטלאַנד, אָרעגאָן. מײַן חבֿר ברונאָ, אַ משפּחה־דאָקטער װאָס אַרבעט אויפֿן געביט פֿון עפֿנטלעכן געזונט פֿאַר דער שטאָט, האָט פּאַרקירט זײַן אױטאָ אין אַ טונקעלער גאַס אַ פּאָר בלאָקן פֿונעם „אײַס“־קאָמפּלעקס.
„אײַס“ זענען די ראשי־תּיבֿות פֿון דער אַמעריקאַנער אימיגראַציע־אַגענטור, וואָס האָט זינט אָקטאָבער 2024 אַרעסטירט מער ווי 185,000 אומדאָקומענטירטע אימיגראַנטן.
„װילסט טראָגן דעם האָן־קאָסטיום?“ האָט ער מיך געפֿרעגט. דאָס ערשטע מאָל אין מײַן לעבן הער איך אַזאַ פֿראַגע. איך זאָג זיך אָפּ, און ער קװעטשט זיך אַרײַן אין דעם אייגנאַרטיקן פֿאַרשטעלעכץ.
אין פּאָרטלאַנד בין איך געפֿאָרן צוליב אַ קאָנפֿערענץ. נישט געקוקט אױף די בויך־סבֿרות פֿון דאָנאַלד טראָמפּ, איז דאָס אַ שײנע שטאָט, פֿול מיט אײגנאַרטיקע װעגעטאַרישע רעסטאָראַנען, מאָדישע שענקען און אַ סך בריקן אַרום אַ בילד־שײנעם טײַך. מע האָט אויך געזען הײמלאָזע אױף די גאַסן אָבער דאָס איז שוין אַ טײל פֿון דער לאַנדשאַפֿט אין כּמעט יעדער גרויסער אַמעריקאַנער שטאָט, אַ סימן פֿון אונדזערע אומגלײַכקײטן.
נאָר צופֿעליק כאַפּט מען זיך אַז נישט אַלץ איז פֿױגלדיק. אָפּשטאַטנדיק אַ װיזיט אין אַ היגער קליניק, האָב איך באַמערקט די באַװוּסטע שילדן, װאָס װאָרנט „אײַס“ נישט אַרײַנצוטרעטן אָן אַ יורידישן באַפֿעל. פֿאַרבײַגײענדיק אױף דער גאַס, הער איך אונטער װי עס רעדט אַ פּאָרל. זי: „איך באָד זיך אין חובֿות. אַפֿשר זאָל איך זיך פֿאַרשרײַבן פֿאַר אַן אײַס־אַגענט, מע זאָל מיר פֿאַרגעבן די חובֿות.“ ענטפֿערט ער אַ שאָקירטער: „רעד נישט אַזעלכע רײד אין דער עפֿנטלעכקײט!“
װי באַװוּסט װערט פּאָרטלאַנד די טעג אָפֿט מאָל דערמאָנט אין די נײַעס, װײַל טראָמפּס אױפֿמערק האָט זיך פֿיקסירט אױף איר, װוּ עס בושעװעט כּלומרשט אַ מלחמה. כאָטש די אײנציקע קריג װאָס איך האָב דאָרט געזען איז געװען דאָס שטופּעניש אין מײַן האָטעלס לאָבי־באַר, האָב איך באַשלאָסן זיך אַריבערצוכאַפּן אין די בלאָקן לעבן „אײַס“־בנין. און דערפֿאַר האָט מײַן חבֿר זיך אָנגעטאָן דעם הון־קאָסטום.
צוליב דעם וואָס איך בין אָנגעקומען אין פּאָרטלאַנד נאָך שבת האָב איך פֿאַרפֿעלט די דעמאָנסטראַציע מיט אַ 100 מענטשן װאָס איז פֿריִער פֿאָרגעקומען, נאָר איך האָב יאָ געזען דעם עולם װאָס זאַמלט זיך דאָרט חדשים לאַנג, און װאָס טראָמפּ װיל באַקעמפֿן מיט דער נאַציאָנאַלער גװאַרדיע.
אַלץ איז געװען גאַנץ פֿרידלעך, כאָטש אַקטיװ. מ׳איז געשטאַנען אין קרײַזלעך, רעדנדיק, אַ מאָל גאַנץ הױך. עטלעכע „יוטובער“ טיפּן האָבן פֿילמירט.
ניק שירלי, אַ 22-יאָריקער װידעאָ־בלאָגער און „קאָנטענט־שאַפֿער“, האָט מיר געזאָגט, „איך בין דאָ צו רעדן מיט מענטשן [אױפֿן אינטערנעט] צו זאָגן זײ װאָס דאָ קומט פֿאָר. אַנטי־פֿאַ און פּראָטעסטירער פֿאַרנעמען די געגנט צו פּראָטעסטירן ׳אײַס׳.“ אַזעלכע פֿילמירערס, אַרומשפּאַנענדיק מיט אַפּאַראַטן אין דער האַנט און מאָבילקעס אױף סעלפֿי־שטעקנס, האָבן געשאַפֿן גיכער אַ מין צירק־געפֿיל, איידער אַן אײַנדרוק פֿון אַ קאָכעדיקן פּראָטעסט.
אַפֿשר אַ פֿופֿציק מענטשן זײַנען געשטאַנען אױף דער גאַס לעבן דעם „אײַס“־בנין יענעם שבת־צו־נאַכט, שרײַענדיק אױף די אַגענטן װאָס האָבן זיך אַװעקגעשטעלט אױפֿן דאַך. טעראָן, אַ 19-יאָריקער, האָט געזאָגט אַז ער איז געקומען כּדי זיך אַקעגנצושטעלן קעגן „אײַס.“ ניקאָל, 22 יאָר, האָט געזאָגט, „מע נעמט אַװעק אונדזערע קאָנסטיטוציאָנעלע רעכט. דערפֿאַר זײַנען מיר דאָ.“
ברי, אַ יונגע, נידעריקע פֿרױ איז געשטאַנען אין מיטן אַ קרײַזל מענטשן, האַלטנדיק פֿעסט אין דער הײך אַ מעקסיקאַנער פֿאָן. „װאָס טוסטו דאָ?“ האָב איך זי אַ פֿרעג געטאָן. „מיר פּראָטעסטירן קעגן דעם ׳אײַס׳־בנין און לאָזן פֿלאַטערן די פֿאָן כּדי אַרױסצוּװײַזן סאָלידאַריטעט מיט אונדזערע מעקסיקאַנער ברידער און שװעסטער, װאָס װערן עטניש גערײניקט.“
אַז אַ פֿרױ, װאָס האָט נישט געװאָלט געבן איר נאָמען, האָט געהערט אַז איך שרײַב פֿאַר אַ ייִדישער צײַטונג, האָט זי האַסטיק אַ פֿרעג געטאָן, „װאָס מײנסטו װעגן עזה? האַלטסטו דאָס פֿאַר אַ גענאָציד?“
אױפֿן װעג צום עולם טראָפּמיסטן (אַ היפּשע צאָל, כאָטש אַ קלענערער װי די לינקע – מיט טראָמפּ־ און אַמעריקאַנער פֿאָנען), האָב איך געטראָפֿן אַ יאַט אָנגעטאָן אין שװאַרץ. „איך װיל גאָר נישט זאָגן, נאָר ס׳איז אַ מזל אַז קײנער איז דאָ נאָך נישט דערהרגעט געװאָרן.“
אַ פּאָליצײ־אױטאָ איז אַדורכגעפֿאָרן. „בלאָקיר נישט די גאַס! זײַט אײדל אײנער צום צװײטן!“ האָט מען געפֿאָלגט. מײַן חבֿר מיטן הון־קאָסטיום האָט געטאַנצט צו דער מוזיק װאָס עמעצער האָט געשפּילט.
אַ פֿאָן־טרעגער צווישן די טראָמפּיסטן האָט מיר באַשריבן זײַנע צילן. „איך בין דאָ צו פֿאַרברענגען, אָנצוקוקן דעם עולם און פֿאַרטײדיקן די פּאַטריאָטן.“
אַ פֿרױ און אַ בחור זענען געשטאַנען אױפֿן ראַנד טראַטואַר. „פֿאַר װאָס זײַט איר דאָ?“ האָב איך אַ פֿרעג געטאָן.
„איך בין אַ שטיצער פֿון די פּאַטריאָטן,“ האָט זי זיך אָפּגערופֿן. „אָנגעקומען בין איך אין פּאָרטלאַנד צו 18 יאָר װי אַ נישט־חתונה־געהאַטע מאַמע. איך האָב געדאַרפֿט שפּעטער פֿאַרלאָזן די שטאָט װײַל איך האָב מער נישט געקענט פֿאָרן מיט דער צופֿאָר־באַן. דראָג־אַדיקטן. ווילדע אומרוען. מע באַגנבֿעט אײנער דעם צװײטן. איך הייס בעט. אָט איז מײַן זון לאָראַן.“
„מעג איך אַראָפּנעמען אײַער בילד?“
„װאָסער צײַטונג, װידער?“
„אַ ייִדישע.“
„אין דעם פֿאַל, דאַרף איך ענדיקן מיט דעם: יעזוס איז דער מלך.“
איך האָב אַ קוק געגעבן אױפֿן האַנטזײגער און זיך געכאַפּט אַז ס׳װערט שפּעטלעך. איבערגעכאַפּט אַן אינדיש־װעגעטאַרישע װעטשערע, זײַנען מיר צוגעפֿאָרן צום פֿליפֿעלד. מײַן חבֿר איז שױן געװאָרן אױס האָן.
כ׳בין אַהײמגעפֿאָרן מיט פּאָרטלאַנדער זכרונות פֿון פֿאָנען און פֿאָטאָגראַפֿן.
The post A Saturday night in Portland, very close to the ICE building appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist Attacks Israel During Democratic Primary Campaign for Governor
Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist speaks at a “Hands Off” protest at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 5, 2025. Photo: Andrew Roth/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist has sparked backlash among the state’s Jewish community in recent weeks over his fierce condemnations of Israel while running in the Democratic primary to be Michigan’s next governor.
Gilchrist has sharpened his rhetoric against Israel, falsely accusing the Jewish state of both committing a “genocide” against the Palestinian people and purposefully inflicting famine across Gaza.
Since entering the race, Gilchrist has embarked on a full-court press to galvanize Michigan’s Arab community behind his campaign. Gilchrist recently spoke at events held by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and ArabCon, in which he condemned Israel for supposedly committing a “genocide” in Gaza. He has also vowed not to accept money from organizations that support Israel’s war against Hamas, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that seeks to foster bipartisan support for the US-Israel alliance.
“This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact,” Gilchrist said to a cheering audience at ArabCon last month. “This has been established by the global leaders who study genocide. This is not something we should support. American taxpayer dollars should not fund offensive weapons of war while children are starving, while medical resources are being blocked to civilians, and while lineages of families are being erased.”
ArabCon, an annual convention held in Dearborn, Michigan to address issues affecting the Arab American community, featured several speakers connected to terrorist organizations. Some featured speakers referred to Zionists as “vile” and dismissed the Jewish people’s connection to Israel.
At last year’s event, Mohammed Maraqa, data strategist for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that “the Jewish community is led by their business people, by their moneyed interests.”
Gilchrist further condemned Israel in fundraising emails, claiming that the Jewish state has oppressed Palestinians and accusing AIPAC, the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the US, of collaborating with “billionaire allies” to silence him.
“What’s happening in Gaza is a genocide. Families are starving. Children are being bombed. And our federal government is writing the checks that fund it,” Gilchrist’s campaign wrote in a fundraising email. “I stand for human rights, dignity, and safety. That is why I am standing with the Palestinian people and their family, friends, and allies in Michigan – even knowing that AIPAC and its billionaire allies will flood Michigan with attack ads to try to shut me up.”
The Jewish Federation of Detroit issued a statement accusing Gilchrist of peddling “antisemitic” tropes and mischaracterizing Israel’s military campaign against the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza.
“Gilchrist promotes an inaccurate and offensive narrative that also omits the horrific attacks of October 7th and ignores those that remain hostage in Gaza,” the Jewish Federation of Detroit said in a statement, referring to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
“This inflammatory language is an attempt to foster divisiveness as a campaign tool. We expect our elected representatives to reject political rhetoric that plays into antisemitic tropes and instead promote peace and understanding among all Michiganders,” the group continued.
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), one of the most vocal critics of Israel in the US Congress, endorsed Gilchrist on Tuesday.
“I trust Garlin [and his] lived experience, not only as a father, but as someone who understands what it means when we don’t have people in office defending us and fighting on our behalf,” Tlaib said.
Skeptics have suggested that Gilchrist’s repudiation of Israel is an effort to inject life into his fledgling gubernatorial campaign. Despite serving as the running mate of sitting Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Gilchrist has failed to secure her endorsement. Earlier this year, Whitmer refused to throw her weight behind Gilchrist, breaking a longstanding tradition of Michigan governors endorsing their second in command.
According to polls, Gilchrist faces a steep uphill climb to win Michigan’s Democratic nomination for governor. A recent poll conducted by Impact research showed Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson leading Gilchrist by a whopping 39 points. Unlike Gilchrist, Benson has refused to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide.”
Uncategorized
US-Backed Efforts Bring Longtime Foes Israel and Syria Closer to Security Pact
Members of Israeli security forces stand at the ceasefire line between the Golan Heights and Syria, July 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Israel and Syria are reportedly in the final stages of months-long negotiations over a security agreement that could establish a joint Israeli, Syrian, and US presence at key strategic locations.
Jerusalem and Damascus have agreed to form a joint Israeli-Syrian–American security committee to oversee developments along their shared border and uphold the terms of a proposed deal, Israeli officials told Saudi media outlets Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath.
Following the fall of longtime Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December, Israel deployed troops into a buffer zone along the Syrian border to establish a military position aimed at preventing terrorists from launching attacks against the Jewish state.
The previously demilitarized zone in the Golan Heights was established under the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement between Damascus and Jerusalem that ended the Yom Kippur War. However, Israel considered the agreement void after the collapse of Assad’s regime.
After months of negotiations and rising tensions, both countries appear close to finalizing an agreement based on the 1974 framework, with minor adjustments to reflect current realities — one of the most promising efforts yet to reach a lasting security arrangement.
For its part, Israel assured US and Syrian officials that it will not support any destabilizing forces within Syrian territory, according to reports.
Meanwhile, the Syrian government pledged to protect the Druze population while providing Sweida, a Druze region in the country’s south, with the support and resources needed to maintain stability.
Under a US-backed proposal, a humanitarian corridor from Israel to Sweida has reportedly been ruled out, with any aid route instead planned to run from Damascus to ensure all movement passes through officially sanctioned channels.
Earlier this year, tensions escalated after heavy fighting broke out in Sweida between local Druze fighters and regime forces amid reports of atrocities against civilians.
At the time, Israel launched an airstrike campaign to protect the Druze, which officials described as a warning to the country’s new leadership over threats to the group — an Arab minority with communities in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel whose religion is derived from Islam.
Jerusalem has pledged to defend the Druze community in Syria with military force if they come under threat — motivated in part by appeals from Israel’s own Druze minority.
But the Syrian government has accused Israel of fueling instability and interfering in its internal affairs, while the new leadership insists it is focused on unifying the country after 14 years of conflict.
Describing Syria’s new rulers as barely disguised jihadists, Israel has consistently vowed to prevent them from deploying forces in the country’s southern region, which borders northeastern Israel.
Despite lingering reservations about the newly established Syrian regime, Israeli officials have signaled interest in pursuing formal diplomatic relations if specific conditions are met.
Under the Trump administration, Washington has lifted sanctions on the Syrian government to support the country’s reconstruction efforts and pushed for Damascus to normalize relations with Israel.