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
Iran Warns Against Any US Strike as Judiciary Hints at Unrest-Linked Executions
FILE PHOTO: Cars burn in a street during a protest over the collapse of the currency’s value, in Tehran, Iran, January 8, 2026. Photo: Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS/ File Photo
Iran‘s president warned on Sunday that any US strike would trigger a “harsh response” from Tehran after an Iranian official in the region said at least 5,000 people — including about 500 security personnel — had been killed in nationwide protests.
Iran‘s protests, sparked last month in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar over economic grievances, swiftly turned political and spread nationwide, drawing participants from across generations and income groups – shopkeepers, students, men and women, the poor and the well‑off – calling for the end of clerical rule.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to intervene if protesters continued to be killed on the streets or were executed. He said in an interview with Politico on Saturday: “it’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.”
Iran indicated on Sunday it might go ahead with executions of people detained during the unrest, and with its clerical rulers facing mounting international pressure over the bloodiest unrest since the 1979 Islamic revolution, is seeking to deter Trump from stepping in.
Iran‘s President Masoud Pezeshkian on X warned that Tehran’s response “to any unjust aggression will be harsh and regrettable,” adding that any attack on the country’s supreme leader is “tantamount to an all-out war against the nation.”
RIGHTS GROUP REPORTS 24,000 ARRESTS
Protests dwindled last week following a violent crackdown.
US-based rights group HRANA said on Saturday the death toll had reached 3,308, with another 4,382 cases under review. It said it had confirmed more than 24,000 arrests.
On Friday, Trump thanked Tehran’s leaders in a social media post, saying they had called off scheduled executions of 800 people. He has moved US military assets into the region but has not specified what he might do.
A day later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei branded Trump a “criminal,” acknowledging “several thousand deaths” that he blamed on “terrorists and rioters” linked to the US and Israel.
Iran‘s judiciary indicated that executions may go ahead.
“A series of actions have been identified as Mohareb, which is among the most severe Islamic punishments,” Iranian judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir told a press conference on Sunday.
Mohareb, an Islamic legal term meaning to wage war against God, is punishable by death under Iranian law.
The Iranian official told Reuters that the verified death toll was unlikely to “increase sharply,” adding “Israel and armed groups abroad” had supported and equipped those taking to the streets.
The clerical establishment regularly blames unrest on foreign enemies, including the US and Israel, an arch foe of the Islamic Republic which launched military strikes in June.
Internet blackouts were partly lifted for a few hours on Saturday but internet monitoring group NetBlocks said they later resumed.
One resident in Tehran said that last week he had witnessed riot police directly shooting at a group of protesters, who were mostly young men and women. Videos circulating on social media, some of which have been verified by Reuters, have shown security forces crushing demonstrations across the country.
HIGHEST DEATH TOLL IN KURDISH AREAS
The Iranian official, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, also said some of the heaviest clashes and highest number of deaths were in the Iranian Kurdish areas in the country’s northwest.
Kurdish separatists have been active there and flare-ups have been among the most violent in past periods of unrest.
Three sources told Reuters on January 14 that armed Kurdish separatist groups sought to cross the border into Iran from Iraq in a sign of foreign entities potentially seeking to take advantage of instability.
Faizan Ali, a 40-year-old medical doctor from Lahore, said he had to cut short his trip to Iran to visit his Iranian wife in the central city of Isfahan as “there was no internet or communication with my family in Pakistan.”
“I saw a violent mob burning buildings, banks and cars. I also witnessed an individual stab a passer-by,” he told Reuters upon his arrival back in Lahore.
Uncategorized
Pentagon Readies 1,500 Troops for Potential Minnesota Deployment, US Officials Say
People protest against ICE, after a US immigration agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis, in New York City, January 7. Photo: REUTERS/Angelina Katsanis
The Pentagon has ordered about 1,500 active-duty soldiers in Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment to Minnesota, the site of large protests against the government’s deportation drive, two US officials told Reuters on Sunday.
The US Army placed the units on prepare-to-deploy orders in case violence in the state escalates, the officials said, though it is not clear whether any of them will be sent.
President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces if officials in the state do not stop protesters from targeting immigration officials after a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Increasingly tense confrontations between residents and federal officers have erupted in Minneapolis since Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was fatally shot behind the wheel of her car by ICE officer Jonathan Ross on January 7.
Mayor Jacob Frey said on Sunday that any military deployment would exacerbate tensions in Minnesota’s largest city, where the Trump administration has already sent 3,000 immigration and border patrol officers to deal with largely peaceful protests.
“That would be a shocking step,” Frey said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. “We don’t need more federal agents to keep people safe. We are safe.”
Clashes in the city intensified after the federal ICE surge and the killing of Good. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Frey should set up “a peaceful protest zone” for demonstrators.
Trump has repeatedly invoked a scandal around the theft of federal funds intended for social-welfare programs in Minnesota as a rationale for sending in immigration agents. The president and administration officials have singled out the state’s community of Somali immigrants.
“I think what he’d be doing is just putting another match on the fire,” US Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, told ABC’s “This Week” when asked about the possible military deployment.
THREAT OF TROOPS FOLLOWS SURGE OF IMMIGRATION AGENTS
If US troops are deployed, it is unclear whether the Trump administration would invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the power to deploy the military or federalize National Guard troops to quell domestic uprisings.
Even without invoking the act, a president can deploy active-duty forces for certain domestic purposes such as protecting federal property, which Trump cited as a justification for sending Marines to Los Angeles last year.
In addition to the active-duty forces, the Pentagon could also attempt to deploy newly created National Guard rapid-response forces for civil disturbances.
“The Department of War is always prepared to execute the orders of the commander in chief if called upon,” said Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, using the Trump administration’s preferred name for the Department of Defense.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order, which was first reported by ABC News.
The soldiers subject to deployment specialize in cold-weather operations and are assigned to two US Army infantry battalions under the 11th Airborne Division, which is based in Alaska, the officials said.
Trump, a Republican, sent the surge of federal agents from ICE and Border Patrol to Minneapolis and neighboring St. Paul early last week, as part of a wave of interventions across the US, mostly to cities run by Democratic politicians.
He has said troop deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Portland, Oregon, are necessary to fight crime and protect federal property and personnel from protesters. But this month he said he was removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, where the deployments have faced legal setbacks and challenges.
Local leaders have accused the president of federal overreach and of exaggerating isolated episodes of violence to justify sending in troops.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, against whom the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation, has mobilized the state’s National Guard to support local law enforcement and the rights of peaceful demonstrators, the state Department of Public Safety posted on X on Saturday.
Uncategorized
New Evidence in Leaked Classified Documents Case Links Netanyahu Advisor
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem, Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: ABIR SULTAN/Pool via REUTERS
i24 News – During an appeal hearing at the District Court over the decision not to extend restrictions in the classified documents case, police revealed new correspondence between Yonatan Urich and Eli Feldstein.
The messages suggest that Feldstein, an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was aware of the secret document and its potential leak.
Feldstein was also summoned for further questioning at Lahav 433 amid suspicions of obstruction during a late-night meeting in a parking lot.
The correspondence, dated October 13, 2024, was exchanged on the encrypted messaging app Signal. Feldstein reportedly wrote to Urich that he was considering taking advantage of a visiting Bild reporter to discuss the document. Urich responded: “Let Hasid handle it, why waste your time on it,” referring to the reporter as a “nuisance.”
Police stated that the messages contradict Urich’s previous claims that he had never seen or heard of the secret document, showing that he was not only aware of it but also discussed its publication with Feldstein.
Last Thursday, the court rejected a request to remove Urich from the Prime Minister’s Office and denied lifting restrictions on Chief of Staff Tzachi Braverman and Omer Mansour. Judge Menachem Mizrahi wrote that the requests lacked “evidentiary, substantive, proportionate, or purposeful justification,” and saw no reason to extend prohibitions on contact or work for the respondents.
The new revelations are likely to intensify scrutiny of the roles of senior aides in the handling of classified material within the Prime Minister’s Office.