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
Jon Stewart, Here Is Your Chance to Be a Mensch
Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” on April 8, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
There is no doubt that Jon Stewart has great comedic ability and the gift of gab. In a sneak attack many years ago, he had a mic drop moment where he destroyed Tucker Carlson’s show CrossFire, telling him to stop hurting America. At that time, all Carlson did was have an aggressive political debate show — he wasn’t spewing Jew-hatred and conspiracy theories.
Stewart, who must know something about antisemitism because he felt a need to change his name from Leibowitz to Stewart, raised The Daily Show to great heights and came out of retirement ostensibly to try to make sure that President Trump is lampooned.
I know Jon Stewart is a person who cares about justice, because he fought very hard for the rights of 9/11 firefighters. The passion Stewart showed and his ability to speak truth to power was unrivaled. Some even thought he even had the potential to be a president one day. If Ukraine can have a president that was a comedian, why not America?
Of course, Stewart would be good if his focus was justice. It isn’t always. Sometimes, it’s only about haranguing Trump, no matter what. How about a few shows against antisemitism. He took on Tucker Carlson once. Why not do it again? While Tucker’s no longer wearing a bowtie, he’s saying he was attacked by a demon and Candace Owens is making claims about time machines. What about a one-hour Netflix or Apple TV+ show lambasting them both. It would be monumental.
But Stewart is hoping that Carlson and Owens continue to wreak havoc, and benefit the Democratic Party. And with only a few more years of Trump, those who want to vilify him want to get their last shots in and may not want to divert to something else. I believe that Stewart is against antisemitism. But he should call it out on all sides, and not mock Israel, a country that faced genocidal terrorists who would kill every Jew if they had the weapons to do so.
Jon Stewart is 63 and mentally sharp. He is capable of much better jokes than about physical appearance, which he recently used to attack Sid Rosenberg. Stewart would be better off criticizing Rosenberg’s positions, or perhaps that’s a bit more difficult these days.
If Stewart really wants to advance justice, he could start by attacking antisemites and racists, on both the right and left. He has the rare talent to do it in an impressive way.
Jon Stewart was the greatest mensch when he fought for firefighters. This is his time to do it again.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
Fatah Glorified Munich Olympics Massacre Ahead of 2026 Winter Olympics
An image of one of the Palestinian terrorists who took part in the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
While the world was preparing to celebrate the Olympic Games in Italy, Fatah celebrated Olympic blood in Munich.
Just two weeks before the opening of this year’s Winter Olympics, Fatah — the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s ruling party — chose to revive and celebrate the most infamous act of Olympic terrorism in history: the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered.
On its Facebook page, Fatah’s Commission of Information and Culture posted a segment from its Awdah TV channel, glorifying the massacre as “a surprise Israel had not experienced before” and recounting how terrorists, whom she called “self-sacrificing fighters,” infiltrated the Olympic Village, seized Israeli hostages, and issued demands.
Responsibility for the murders was subtly shifted away from the terrorists, while the operation was presented as daring and historic:
Fatah-run Awdah TV host:“In September 1972, Israel was about to receive a surprise it had not experienced before. Eight self-sacrificing fighters [i.e., terrorists] invaded the quarters of the Israeli sports delegation that was participating in the Olympic Games in the German city of Munich. They captured nine Israelis and demanded to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners [i.e., terrorists] who were in the Israeli prisons in exchange for the release of the hostages. Israel refused to negotiate, and the hostages were killed.”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, Jan. 22, 2026]
On the same day, Fatah’s Commission of Information and Culture also lionized the architect of the Munich massacre, Ali Hassan Salameh, as “The Red Prince.”
Fatah described him as a brilliant “security mind” and strategic genius whose operations allegedly “embarrassed Israel:”
Text on screen: “The Red Prince, the commander whom the Mossad pursued for years. Ali Hassan Salameh was not a shadowy figure, but rather a security mind who created a secret battle …
He joined Fatah in the mid-1960s and was among its first security personnel. He quickly stood out for his organizational wisdom and ability, and sensitive missions were entrusted to him … He led the security activity of the revolution outside Palestine and built a complex defense network that embarrassed Israel. He became a central target of the Mossad, and his name topped the assassination lists.
[Then Israeli Prime Minister] Golda Meir gave the order to eliminate him, and the pursuit after him crossed continents … On Jan. 22, 1979, the Mossad assassinated him in Beirut using a car bomb. His assassination did not put an end to his presence, rather it established his status as one of the most dangerous minds of the revolution. Ali Hassan Salameh, a security commander and one of the symbols of the hidden strugglewith the occupation.” [emphasis added]
Posted text:“The Red Prince Ali Hassan Salameh, the commander whom the Mossad pursued for years”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, Jan. 22, 2026]
Even more than 54 years later, the PA’s ruling party still treats the Munich Olympics massacre as a legacy to be celebrated.
By deliberately highlighting this massacre just before the Milano Winter Olympics, Fatah yet again shows how it is proud to promote terrorists and terrorism.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
How NPR Whitewashes the Palestinian Authority’s ‘Pay-for-Slay’ Program
Stuart and Robbi Force (left), parents of Taylor Force, with Reps. Doug Lamborn and Lee Zeldin. Taylor Force was killed by a Palestinian terrorist while visiting Israel. Photo: Algemeiner.
Even for NPR, the latest segment on its popular “All Things Considered” program crossed the line.
Headlined “Palestinian Authority tries to reform, but one measure is sparking a backlash,” the segment focused on the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s controversial “pay-for-slay” program, where imprisoned Palestinian terrorists and their families, or the families of Palestinians who were killed while committing acts of terrorism or trying to harm Israeli security forces, receive financial stipends.
However, instead of taking a critical look at “pay-for-slay,” NPR provided cover for the insidious PA program.
To begin, NPR immediately whitewashed the program in the subheading, referring to it merely as “payments to families whose relatives are killed or jailed by Israel.”
There was zero mention of the fact that this program incentivizes violence and terrorism by paying out more to families of terrorists than the PA’s regular social welfare pay-outs. In addition, there was no mention that these payments are based on the length of prison sentences rather than actual financial need.
And that was just the tip of the iceberg.
No, @NPR, this isn’t the reason the PA program is “controversial.”
The recipients of the cash are families of TERRORISTS – not Palestinians who committed minor crimes or were innocently caught in the crossfire, but bona fide terrorists whom you appear to be whitewashing. pic.twitter.com/WH0q1AkOBj
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) February 10, 2026
Throughout the story, NPR’s Emily Feng downplayed the vile nature of “pay-for-slay.”
“Pay-for-slay” wasn’t presented as a dangerous incentive for the murder of innocent Israelis, which was the target of American legislation (The Taylor Force Act).
Instead, the program was merely characterized as “controversial.” But using public funds to incentivize terrorism is something much more grave and consequential.
Along with this false characterization, NPR also portrayed the truth about the program as Israeli criticisms that “the PA pushes back against.”
It would be hard to find a more watered-down depiction of “pay-for-slay.”
Further on in the segment, Feng interviewed a Palestinian woman named Inaan who was receiving a monthly payment of 1,400 shekels ($440) since her son had been killed by the IDF.
This doesn’t seem like a lot of money. However, Feng failed to inform her audience that this is only the payment for family members of those killed by Israeli security forces (after a one-time payment of 6,000 shekels).
Terrorists in Israeli prisons can receive up to 12,000 shekels (roughly $3,900) per month.
This presentation of the monthly payments being inconsequential and of limited value is further emphasized by Feng’s next interviewee, Qadura Fares, who is quoted as saying, “The money — it’s mean [sic] nothing for those have believed [sic] that this occupation should be ended and to fight the occupation.”
Fares is the former head of the PA’s prisoners’ affairs commission. In passing, NPR also informed its audience that Fares served time in Israeli prison for “trying to kill Israeli soldiers.”
That’s right, NPR platformed a convicted terrorist.
Perhaps the words of someone who used to target Israelis should be taken with a grain of salt when discussing payments for imprisoned terrorists.
Fares resigned from his position after PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced an end to the “pay-for-slay” policy, stating that the only recipients would now be those who require economic assistance. Many groups, including Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), have provided documentation that the PA is still continuing “pay-for-slay” — though the PA is trying to hide the payments.
Along with Fares, Feng interviewed a couple of other Palestinians who were upset with this alleged reform and complained that the new system is not working properly.
What Feng failed to inform her audience is that this “reform” is alleged by analysts like PMW to be a ruse, with Abbas promising a Palestinian audience that imprisoned terrorists and the families of “martyrs” would continue to receive funds, and that the “reform” is more of a restructuring than an outright end to “pay-for-slay.”
Nearly a year after this “reform” was announced, many beneficiaries were still reportedly receiving their payments.
Perhaps the cherry on top is when Feng referred to the alleged reform as “trying to please outside powers.” As if the program didn’t require serious reform, but rather that the PA capitulated to foreign interference.
A whitewash indeed.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.