Uncategorized
In Congress, a measure to tighten U.S.-Israel military ties sparks backlash on both sides of the aisle
Next year’s National Defense Authorization Act has made its way to the House floor, and has some Democrats and conservatives alike rallying against a provision that critics in Congress say would embroil the U.S. in unprecedented levels of military integration with Israel.
The measure, Section 224 of the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, was advanced by Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., as part of the committee’s annual defense bill. If enacted, it would establish a framework for expanded U.S.-Israel defense cooperation. An official designated by the Pentagon would be responsible for coordinating collaboration with Israel on technologies ranging from missile defense and drones to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and biotechnology. The provision also encourages joint research projects, shared manufacturing arrangements, military training exercises, and closer cooperation between American and Israeli defense companies.
While the proposal has generated controversy in its own right, it is also fueling a broader conversation about what the U.S.-Israel defense relationship should look like after 2028, when the current 10-year memorandum of understanding governing American military assistance to Israel expires.
The United States has provided military assistance to Israel since 1960, but since 1998, the bulk of that aid has been directed by a series of such memoranda negotiated between the two countries. Congress must still approve the funds annually, but lawmakers have historically funded the agreements as negotiated.
But in recent months, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that he does not wish to renew the 2016 MOU to its full extent, stating that he hopes to “taper off” U.S. aid over the next decade and wishes to focus instead on a more collaborative defense relationship.
His comments come as public support for Israel has declined in the United States and military aid has come under increasing political scrutiny, with many Democrats and some Republicans calling to reduce or cut off assistance. An April Pew Research Center survey found that 60% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% a year earlier. Negative views have risen among both Democrats and Republicans, particularly among younger generations. Today, 57% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats ages 18 to 49 have an unfavorable view according to the Pew survey.
Rachel Brandenburg, managing director and senior policy analyst at the Israel Policy Forum, said Israeli leaders are likely aware that future aid packages could face greater scrutiny from both Democrats and an increasingly isolationist wing of the Republican Party, a factor that helps explain the Israeli interest in reducing its reliance on U.S. aid. At the same time, she said, Israel’s increasingly sophisticated defense industry and strong economy have made it less reliant on American financing than in the past.
Against that backdrop, supporters of Section 224 argue that deeper cooperation could help lay the groundwork for a future relationship based on mutual benefits.
“The United States has more to gain by harnessing Israel’s defense tech ecosystem, their innovative capabilities,” Brandenburg said. “Their economy is strong, so there’s quite a bit that they could be buying with their own dollars.”
Michael O’Hanlon, the Chair in Defense and Strategy and director of research in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, told the Forward he believes the concerns that Section 224 would integrate the U.S.-Israel defense relationship to unprecedented levels are overblown. “My overall sense is that this would move the US-Israel relationship in the direction of AUKUS,” he said, referring to an existing trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
“In theory, it shouldn’t really be needed because collaboration is already close,” he explained. “In practice, this kind of provision might help cut through bureaucratic red tape and speed up collaborations. But on balance, I don’t expect huge change because the partnership is already very tight.”
Critics, however, see the proposal very differently.
Its opponents worry that if the U.S. and Israel move away from a military-aid relationship and toward a more collaborative partnership, large parts of the U.S.-Israel defense relationship will be harder to scrutinize or limit. Instead of debating aid packages, lawmakers could find themselves dealing with defense projects that are already built into Pentagon programs and contracts.
“It’s taking one program that’s become unpopular and turning it into another program that those who would disapprove of an intensified U.S.-Israeli defense relationship won’t really know about,” said Steven Simon, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute.
If combined with Israel’s stated desire to reduce its reliance on aid and other efforts to deepen defense cooperation, Simon says Section 224 could produce a relationship that is “much more integrated, immutable, and immune to political pressures than has ever existed.”
Similar concerns have been raised by lawmakers on the left.
Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Monday that he intends to “strongly oppose” the provision, arguing that “Netanyahu is lobbying for Section 224 in the national defense bill, a provision that quietly expands U.S.-Israel military cooperation and weapons development with almost zero oversight.”
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, also opposes the provision and introduced an amendment to strike Section 224 during committee markup, stating, “The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do.”
On the right, political figures and commentators have framed the measure as a threat to American sovereignty.
Former representative Marjorie Taylor Greene tied the provision to the recent reports of Israeli espionage against the U.S., stating on X, “The Pentagon raised threat of Israeli spying on the U.S. to the highest level and AIPAC is openly cheering Republicans for section 224 in the NDAA that merges our military with Israel’s military.” Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie — who this week held a hearing premised on the conspiracy theory that Israel intentionally killed U.S. soldiers on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War — pledged to offer a floor amendment to strike the section.
The debate has also been picked up by far-right commentators, including podcaster Alex Jones, who stated: “This is beyond treason. This is absolutely a foreign government merging with us. Israel is now the main threat to the existence of this country.”
Brandenburg pushed back on concerns that the proposal would weaken oversight. Rather than moving cooperation further from public view, the legislation calls for additional reporting to Congress and public disclosure of some forms of existing coordination between the two countries, Brandenburg noted.
“That’s new,” she said, “in the sense of adding the accountability and transparency to these elements of the relationship in ways that didn’t exist previously.”
She also asserts many critics have overstated the significance of Section 224, noting that many of the forms of cooperation described in the legislation — including collaboration on missile defense, cyber security and counter-drone technology — are already taking place.
“Those who want to counter the idea that Israel and the United States should be working together have exaggerated what this legislation is actually saying,” she said. “They are accusing it of things like integrating the U.S. and Israeli militaries, or subjugating the U.S. military to the Israeli military. None of that is actually called for in here.”
The post In Congress, a measure to tighten U.S.-Israel military ties sparks backlash on both sides of the aisle appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Nominee for Wisconsin governor appeared with podcast host who defended ‘Camp Auschwitz’ t-shirt
Rep. Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin’s Republican nominee for governor, is facing heat for appearing on a podcast hosted by an online personality with a history of antisemitic remarks and jokes about Adolf Hitler.
“The Quartering” podcast host Jeremy Hambly has said Adolf Hitler had “actually done some good things,” joked with guests about the Holocaust by calling it the “Hall of Cost” and saying it cost “around 6 million bucks,” and defended a “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirt worn during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot as “dark humor.” In 2023, The Quartering was sponsored by Antelope Hill Publishing, a white nationalist publisher that marked Hitler’s birthday each year by offering discounts on books written by and about the Nazi leader.
Tiffany discussed his gubernatorial bid on a December episode of the podcast, as reported by the Milwaukee Courier — news that emerged after Tiffany had criticized a leading Democratic candidate for appearing with popular progressive streamer Hasan Piker, who has been embraced by Democratic Party candidates even as he has championed terrorist groups as righteous fighters against Israel — leading to accusations he trafficks in antisemitism. In a recent speech to college students, Piker blasted Democrats who “fund ICE” and “fund Israel.”
On the podcast, Tiffany, who is running unopposed on the Republican side to replace Gov. Tony Evers, a two-term Democrat who announced his retirement, also accepted Hambly’s offer to volunteer for his campaign.
In the interview with Tiffany, Hambly said he “will do everything” he can to elect the Republican as governor and offered to help the Tiffany campaign alongside Scott Presler, a prominent “Stop the Steal” activist who has been affiliated with the anti-Islamic group ACT for America.
“I can bring Scott Presler out. We can doorknock for you,” Hambly said. When Hambly asked how supporters could get involved, Tiffany directed listeners to his campaign website to sign up as volunteers.
The resurfaced interview comes as Tiffany has sought to make antisemitism an issue in the governor’s race by criticizing Democratic state Rep. Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist whose campaign has gained momentum in the competitive Aug. 11 Democratic primary, for appearing on a livestream hosted by Piker.
“Remember what [Hong] said the day after we had all these socialists win recent elections?” Tiffany said on The Jay Weber Show last week. “Wisconsin, you’re next.” He later warned that voters “need to wake up” before Hong, whom he said was “going to hang around with an antisemite,” is elected governor.
The Tiffany campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the candidate’s podcast appearance.
Hong defended her appearance on Piker’s show, saying, “Just because I am on a platform certainly does not mean that I endorse everything that has been said by either the hosts or other people who have gone on.”
Wisconsin Republicans have been accused by Democrats of trying to boost Hong in the primary because they believe she would be easier to beat than her rivals in the general election. Recent polls show Hong with a slight lead.
Emily Stuckey, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, told the Forward in a statement that “Tiffany is cozying up to antisemitic extremists who have praised Hitler and encouraging them to volunteer with his campaign — it’s clear he is far too extreme to represent Wisconsin.”
The post Nominee for Wisconsin governor appeared with podcast host who defended ‘Camp Auschwitz’ t-shirt appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump rejects Mamdani vow to arrest Netanyahu in NYC
(JTA) — Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he’s still thinking about whether he should arrest Benjamin Netanyahu the next time the Israeli prime minister is in New York City. Not gonna happen, President Donald Trump stepped in on Monday to say.
“Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump’s post came days after Mamdani said that he is in “active conversation” with the city’s Law Department about detaining a foreign leader like Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged actions related to Israel’s war with Hamas. Netanyahu often attends the United Nations General Assembly in Manhattan in September and is planning to do so this year.
“I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in The Hague,” Mamdani reiterated, in an interview with the New York Times, referring to the court’s seat in the Netherlands.
He also hedged on his earlier pledge, seeming ready to defer to the city’s lawyers. (The legal consensus has been that a warrant by a court not recognized by the United States is unenforceable. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he is seeking the dismantlement of the ICC.)
“I’ve also said that I will follow the laws that we have here in New York City because I believe that there is an importance in following the law as a leader who presides over our city,” Mamdani told the Times. The interviewer, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, prompted him to elaborate. “Meaning that whatever the law allows me to do in New York City, that’s what we will do, but we won’t be writing our own laws to that end,” Mamdani said.
Trump jumped to the defense of Netanyahu, who is up for reelection later this year.
Netanyahu, he said, is busy fighting the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the “only ones that should be arrested are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!”
Trump’s comments come after months of speculation over how an attempted arrest of Netanyahu could pit New York City law enforcement against the United States. Mamdani told reporters after a private meeting with the president last year that the two men did not discuss his vow to arrest Netanyahu. Mamdani has said he would also push for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, were he to enter New York City.
Some Mamdani Democratic allies were also pouring cold water on the prospect of an arrest.
California Rep. Ro Khanna, who is often aligned with Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian politics, said on the Fox News Channel on Sunday that, in his view, Netanyahu “can come to the U.N. Assembly.”
“The ICC and ICJ have a legal process. That case will go forward,” Khanna said, adding that he’s focused on cutting military aid and stopping weapons sales to Israel. “But, you know, I’m not for creating a spectacle. The U.N. is a place that people can come to.”
Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Barack Obama, speculated that Mamdani’s plan could backfire, since an attempt to arrest Netanyahu would “give him a political boost at home” as Netanyahu fights for reelection. “That would be an own goal,” Shapiro wrote on X.
Republican New York City Council member Inna Vernikov, who is Jewish and has been a staunch Mamdani critic, wrote to Rubio requesting that the State Department issue Mamdani a “stern warning.” She also asked that the department issue an opinion on whether arresting Netanyahu would “violate U.S. law resulting in a prosecution and/or criminal action taken by the federal government against Mayor Mamdani.”
A New York City mayor has previously booted an international leader from a U.N.-related event. In 1995, Rudy Giuliani had Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, ejected from a U.N. concert at Lincoln Center, drawing criticism from then-President Bill Clinton’s administration.
Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote on Saturday that Netanyahu will be attending the U.N. General Assembly in September. “And if anyone should be arrested, it is @NYCMayor Zohran Mamdani,” he said.
The post Trump rejects Mamdani vow to arrest Netanyahu in NYC appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Where does Andy Burnham, the new British prime minister, stand on Israel and antisemitism?
(JTA) — Andy Burnham officially became Britain’s new Labour prime minister on Monday, replacing Keir Starmer who resigned following the party’s disastrous showing in local elections in May.
Starmer left behind a mixed record on antisemitism. He purged the party of its image as hostile to Jews under former party leader Jeremy Corbyn. But at the same time, attacks against Jews in Britain have risen in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack on Israel, and uncertainty is at a high.
Starmer’s successor has spent much of his political career over the past decade cultivating close ties with Britain’s Jewish community. As the former mayor of Greater Manchester, home to one of Europe’s largest Jewish populations, Burnham frequently spoke out against antisemitism, attended Holocaust commemorations and worked closely with Jewish communal organizations.
Yet in the lead-up to his installation as prime minister, Burnham also signaled a shift in Labour’s mainstream position on Israel and Gaza, including support for greater pressure on Israel.
Burnham’s comments about Labour’s leadership contest prompted a sharp rebuke from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, which expressed “significant concerns” over his framing of Gaza and Israel’s war with Hamas. The umbrella groups also said they welcomed his commitment to tackling antisemitism.
Here is a look at some of Burnham’s views on the subjects and how they might impact his party’s policies going forward.
Early support for Israel and a two-state solution
During Labour’s 2015 leadership contest, Burnham said at a Jewish community debate that his first foreign trip, should he win the Labour leadership, would be to Israel. He opposed a boycott of Israel, asking, “What message would it send?” while stating that he supported a negotiated two-state solution.
In a questionnaire sent to him that year by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, he also stated that he supported “two states living side by side in peace, and recognized by all of their neighbors.” However, he added that he supported “an end to occupation and illegal settlement building by the Israelis, and an end to the rocket and terror attacks by the terrorist group Hamas.”
He also made it clear at the time that he did not support West Bank settlements, telling the PSC, “Labour recognizes that the settlements and their continued expansion remain key obstacles to resolving the conflict, as [then party leader] Ed Miliband has said, they are both illegal and immoral.”
Labour’s antisemitism crisis
Burnham was vocal about tackling antisemitism when the Labour Party became embroiled in allegations of antisemitism under Corbyn’s leadership between 2015 and 2020,.
Corbyn had in 2012 mural defended a mural depicting hook-nosed Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of exploited workers. (He later said he regretted the defense.) He called representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends.”
Burnham told the Board of Deputies in 2019 that Labour had failed to deal with antisemitism complaints “firmly, quickly and decisively” and warned that the party had lost the confidence of many Jewish voters.
“It is inconceivable to me that a party which has prided itself on its record on racism could have become embroiled in an antisemitism crisis,” he said.
In 2020, the U.K.’s Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour had committed unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination related to antisemitism.
Oct. 7 and rising antisemitism
In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack, Burnham issued a statement with his deputy mayor saying, “We condemn without reservation the appalling attacks in Israel by Hamas. Nothing justifies the taking of innocent lives in such a barbaric and indiscriminate manner.”
He also stated that “Israel had a right to defend itself, and protect its citizens, in line with international law”
He told the Jewish community that he had spoken with Greater Manchester’s chief constable, who assured him there would be an increased police presence alongside Jewish community organizations. Burnham said local leaders were “determined that all our communities in Greater Manchester will be kept safe” and that “we will never tolerate any form of hatred on our streets.”
Manchester synagogue terror attack
Barely two years later on Yom Kippur 2025, Manchester became the target of a major terror attack, outside Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation. Two people were killed amid a police response.
“Manchester stands together and we will not allow division in our communities,” Burnham said, visiting the synagogue soon after what he described as an attack on the entire city.
Golders Green ambulance attack
Burnham spoke out in April when four Hatzola volunteer ambulances were set ablaze in London’s heavily Orthodox Golders Green neighborhood. “This is another terrible incident that will concern Jewish communities in London and in Greater Manchester who have faced appalling antisemitic attacks in recent months,” he said.
Recent comments on Gaza
Burnham has been critical of Israel’s military campaign in the aftermath of Oct. 7. He doubled down in a leadership campaign video released last week and took his own party to task.
He condemned Hamas and once again rejected antisemitism, but he argued Britain should “do more to put pressure on the Israeli government,” including considering further restrictions on arms exports and action against illegal West Bank settlements.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right, and I am sorry about that,” he said. The party was “too slow to call for a ceasefire.”
He called images from Gaza “a scar on our collective conscience.”
His comments reflect a parliamentary push across the board that Britain should do more to take action against Israel, including supporting a ban on all Israeli goods coming from the West Bank — something that Ireland and other European countries have been pushing for.
In his video, Burnham stopped short of describing Israel’s actions as genocide, saying that such a determination should be made by international courts.
Jewish communal reaction
The video drew a swift response from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council. Burnham had seen “first hand the links between hatred of Israel, antisemitic extremism and deadly violence against British Jews,” the groups said.
They urged Burnham and other political leaders to “show the utmost care in their rhetoric” at a time when antisemitism in Britain had become “more normalized, more extreme and more violent.”
British Jews will watch closely how Burnham balances his longstanding engagement with the Jewish community and his increasingly critical stance toward the Israeli government.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Chief Executive Gideon Falter read aloud an open letter to Burnham on Monday calling on him to take a stand against the rise in antisemitism in the country. “Your legacy will not be remembered solely in terms of tax rates and hospital waiting times,” Falter said. “It will be whether Jews were murdered or thrived in Andy Burnham’s Britain.”
Board of Deputies President Phil Rosenberg congratulated Burnham on X, and welcomed the new prime minister’s “early commitment to tackling antisemitism,” and that the Board “will work with his administration towards the U.K. playing its strongest role in global peace and security.”
Ephraim Mirvis, the country’s chief rabbi, posted a photo on X of himself and Burnham and offered a blessing. “He assumes the immense responsibility of leadership at a time of great challenge, both at home and abroad,” Mirvis said. “May he be blessed with the wisdom, strength and good judgment to keep our country safe and may his service bring prosperity and harmony for all.”
The post Where does Andy Burnham, the new British prime minister, stand on Israel and antisemitism? appeared first on The Forward.
