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
Report: Iran Considers Removing Hezbollah Leader Naim Qassem
Lebanon’s Hezbollah Chief Naim Qassem gives a televised speech from an unknown location, July 30, 2025, in this screen grab from video. Photo: Al Manar TV/REUTERS TV/via REUTERS
i24 News – Iran is reportedly dissatisfied with the performance of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem and is preparing to reorganize the group’s leadership, potentially removing him from his position, according to a report by Emirati outlet Erem News citing senior Lebanese diplomatic sources.
The report claims Tehran views Qassem as “unsuitable to lead Hezbollah at this critical stage,” arguing that he has failed to meet the leadership standards set by his predecessor, longtime Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.
Iranian officials are said to believe Qassem lacks sufficient political acumen and hold him responsible for the deterioration in relations between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state.
According to Erem News, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is expected to oversee preparations for restructuring Hezbollah’s internal leadership during an upcoming visit to Beirut.
The visit is intended to assess the organization’s internal climate through direct meetings with senior Hezbollah figures and influential operatives.
“The Iranian minister seeks to monitor the general climate within Hezbollah and convey an accurate picture of the internal situation to decision-makers in Tehran,” the report said, adding that the findings would be used to inform “crucial decisions regarding anticipated changes at the head of the organization, most notably the fate of Naim Qassem.”
Uncategorized
Iran’s Foreign Minister to Visit Russia and Belarus, Foreign Ministry Says
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran‘s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araqchi, will visit Russia and Belarus in the next two to three days, foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Sunday.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian met Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Turkmenistan on Friday.
Uncategorized
Ukraine Drops NATO Goal as Trump Envoy Sees Progress in Peace Talks
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy looks on at a stakeout during the 80th United Nations General Assembly in New York City, U.S., September 23, 2025. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
President Volodymyr Zelensky offered to drop Ukraine’s aspirations to join the NATO military alliance as he held five hours of talks with US envoys in Berlin on Sunday to end the war with Russia, with negotiations set to continue on Monday.
Trump‘s envoy Steve Witkoff said “a lot of progress was made” as he and Trump‘s son-in-law Jared Kushner met Zelensky in the latest push to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War Two, though full details were not divulged.
Zelensky’s adviser Dmytro Lytvyn said the president would comment on the talks on Monday once they were completed. Officials, Lytvyn said, were considering the draft documents.
“They went on for more than five hours and ended for today with an agreement to resume tomorrow morning,” Lytvyn told reporters in a WhatsApp chat.
Ahead of the talks, Zelensky offered to drop Ukraine’s goal to join NATO in exchange for Western security guarantees.
The move marks a major shift for Ukraine, which has fought to join NATO as a safeguard against Russian attacks and has such an aspiration included in its constitution. It also meets one of Russia’s war aims, although Kyiv has so far held firm against ceding territory to Moscow.
“Representatives held in-depth discussions regarding the 20-point plan for peace, economic agendas, and more. A lot of progress was made, and they will meet again tomorrow morning,” Witkoff said in a post on X.
The talks were hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who a source said had made brief remarks before leaving the two sides to negotiate. Other European leaders are also due in Germany for talks on Monday.
“From the very beginning, Ukraine’s desire was to join NATO, these are real security guarantees. Some partners from the US and Europe did not support this direction,” Zelensky said in answer to questions from reporters in a WhatsApp chat.
“Thus, today, bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the US, Article 5-like guarantees for us from the U.S., and security guarantees from European colleagues, as well as other countries — Canada, Japan — are an opportunity to prevent another Russian invasion,” Zelensky said.
“And it is already a compromise on our part,” he said, adding the security guarantees should be legally binding.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly demanded Ukraine officially renounce its NATO ambitions and withdraw troops from the about 10% of Donbas which Kyiv still controls. Moscow has also said Ukraine must be a neutral country and no NATO troops can be stationed in Ukraine.
Russian sources said earlier this year that Putin wants a “written” pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the US-led NATO alliance eastwards – shorthand for formally ruling out membership to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other former Soviet republics.
Sending Witkoff, who has led negotiations with Ukraine and Russia on a US peace proposal, appeared to be a signal that Washington saw a chance of progress nearly four years after Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Under pressure from Trump to sign a peace deal that initially backed Moscow’s demands, Zelensky accused Russia of dragging out the war through deadly bombings of cities and Ukraine’s power and water supplies.
A ceasefire along the current front lines would be a fair option, he added.
“CRITICAL MOMENT”
Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said it was a “good sign” Trump had sent his envoys while fielding questions in an interview with the ZDF broadcaster on the suitability of Witkoff and Kushner, two businessmen, as negotiators.
“It’s certainly anything but an ideal setup for such negotiations. That much is clear. But as they say, you can only dance with the people on the dance floor,” Pistorius said.
On the issue of Ukraine’s offer to give up its NATO aspirations in exchange for security guarantees, Pistorius said Ukraine had bitter prior experience of relying on security assurances. Kyiv had in 1994 agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in exchange for territorial guarantees from the US, Russia and Britain.
“Therefore, it remains to be seen to what extent this statement Zelensky has now made will actually hold true, and what preconditions must be met,” Pistorius said.
“This concerns territorial issues, commitments from Russia and others,” he said, adding mere security guarantees, especially without significant US involvement, “wouldn’t be worth much.”
Britain, France and Germany have been working to refine the US proposals, which in a draft disclosed last month called for Kyiv to cede more territory, abandon its NATO ambitions and accept limits on its armed forces.
European allies have described this as a “critical moment” that could shape Ukraine’s future, and sought to shore up Kyiv’s finances by leveraging frozen Russian central bank assets to fund Kyiv’s military and civilian budget.
