Uncategorized
Is the ‘Board of Peace’ just another Trump scam, or a real move toward Middle East peace?
President Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he would join on Wednesday, seems like it aspires to function as something like a replacement United Nations. It is a striking mixture of ambitious and unserious — but may still be useful, despite the long odds.
The idea was first proposed by Trump in September, when he announced his plan for ending the war in Gaza. But when Trump announced the Board’s establishment last week, its charter made no mention of the embattled strip. Instead, the mission statement declared that “the Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” (An invitation to join has been extended to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been pursuing an unprovoked war in Ukraine for nearly four years.)
That international organization seems likely to function much more like Trump University — the lawsuit-ridden unaccredited institution Trump ran from 2005 to 2010 — than the U.N.
The board is led by a chairman — Trump, naturally — who controls who joins, who stays past an initial three-year term, who leads, how long the institution lives, and even how its rules are interpreted. Every major decision, including the annual budget, requires his approval, giving him final authority over all spending and operations. For those countries that either have the most faith in the project, or the strongest desire to curry favor with Trump, a $1 billion fee — which will theoretically be spent on peacekeeping projects — buys lifelong membership.
Realistically, it would be a mistake for any country to put its security in the hands of a mechanism personally controlled by Trump. Such a structure — with power concentrated in the hands of one man, who would oversee all finances and be able to effectively veto any decision — is incompatible with constitutional government, transparency, and the rule of law.
All of which makes the Board of Peace — whose members so far mostly include Trump cronies, plus, amusingly enough, the always amenable ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair — a dead letter as a framework for strengthening the world order.
That doesn’t mean that the U.N. itself isn’t deeply flawed — it is. That’s particularly true when it comes to the UN’s anti-Israel bias, especially in bodies like the Human Rights Council. But the fact that the U.N. is broken does not make it easily replaceable.
Because the U.N. derives its authority from a set of principles that Trump’s scheme does not even pretend to respect: that peace must be institutional, not dependent on personal whims; that international legitimacy is created by a commitment to shared rules, not proximity to power; and that sovereignty is constrained by law, not by who can dominate the room.
Trump’s proposal does not correct the U.N.’s failures. Instead, it abandons the good stuff, replacing multilateral legitimacy with a private boondoggle.
And what an absurd boondoggle it would be. Consider Trump’s behavior just this week, as he took his quest to wrest Greenland from NATO ally Denmark to scandalized allies at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
In a preposterous letter to the prime minister of Norway, pushing his Greenland campaign, Trump shared that because he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize he no longer feels obliged to “think purely of peace.” No American president has ever suggested that restraint, stability, or the pursuit of peace should be conditional on personal recognition. Peace, in this framing, is not a duty of office but a favor Trump bestows when sufficiently flattered.
Trump’s campaign for Greenland has rattled the NATO alliance to the core. A collapse of NATO — which has prevented great-power war in Europe for three quarters of a century by binding sovereignty to law and commitment — is likely the last thing you would want if peace were your concern.
So as a global architecture, the Board of Peace is vulgar, unserious, unworkable, and possibly outright dangerous. And yet I hesitate to fully condemn it for one reason: Gaza.
On the disastrous war in Gaza, Trump has done some good. His bear hug of Israel and heavy-handed ways forced Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire in a war he seemed prepared to continue indefinitely — thus saving dozens of hostages.
And unlike some confused people, Trump does not pretend that Hamas can be managed into moderation. He appears to understand that the group cannot be allowed to stay in place as a militia, since its continued presence would all but ensure more attacks and more future wars.
Trump is also driven by a sense of ownership. He remains focused when a project feels like his, and the Middle East is such a project. If the Board of Peace appears to be key to sustaining his sense of ownership — and if it keeps pressure on regional actors, maintaining momentum toward dismantling Hamas’s grip on Gaza — then it may be useful, even if its structure is indefensible.
The Middle East is not short of failed peace processes. It is short of actors willing to force through needed change, despite enormous obstructions. Trump’s style is coercive, transactional, and often reckless, but it can produce movement where procedural diplomacy stalls. And in Gaza, movement is critical.
So two things are true: Trump’s grotesque Board of Peace corrupts the meaning of diplomacy, and at the same time, Trump himself may be uniquely useful in this one scenario, and perhaps a few others. I don’t want this case to become a model, but I do want the Gaza plan to move forward. And if this new endeavor may help, despite our profound reasons to be skeptical of it, it’s worth holding out to see what it might achieve.
The post Is the ‘Board of Peace’ just another Trump scam, or a real move toward Middle East peace? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Providence voters pass ballot initiative that could lead to divestment of city funds from Israel
(JTA) — Voters in Providence, Rhode Island, have approved a ballot measure that could result in the city divesting public funds from Israel, according to local media, in a major victory for the Israel boycott movement.
In a major victory for the Israel boycott movement, voters in Providence, Rhode Island, have approved a ballot measure that could result in the city divesting public funds from Israel, according to local media.
With 81 of 82 polling locations partially reported, the Rhode Island Board of Elections tallied 75% voting to approve the measure versus 25% rejecting. Both the Rhode Island Current and the Boston Globe report the measure was approved.
“We are overjoyed that the city of Providence has voted — by more than a 3 to 1 margin — to divest our collective dollars from support for genocide and ethnic cleansing,” Lex Rofeberg, who runs the alternative Jewish engagement network Judaism Unbound and was an organizer with the Providence divestment initiative, told JTA. “This historic moment can serve as an example for other cities around the country hoping to align their investments with their values.”
The ordinance calls for the capital city to refrain from investing in “foreign countries conducting ethnic cleansing, apartheid, illegal military occupation, or genocide.” Though the ballot language does not mention Israel by name, it was heavily supported by local pro-Palestinian groups and opposed by some Jewish and pro-Israel groups.
A representative for the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island previously told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the group would explore legal options to challenge the ballot measure in the event that it passed.
The vote makes Providence the largest municipality yet to vote in favor of some form of Israel divestment, following the lead of Somerville, Massachusetts, whose voters approved a nonbinding divestment measure last year. Providence is home to an estimated 15,000 Jews, or around 7% of its population. Progressive Jewish groups, including the local chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, were among the ballot measure’s advocates.
The city’s mayor, Brett Smiley, a pro-Israel Democrat who converted to Judaism while in office, lost his primary to a democratic socialist, an early indicator of which way the divestment vote would go.
Activist initiatives to challenge U.S. financial aid to Israel have picked up steam in the years since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and ensuing Gaza war. On the morning of Election Day, President Donald Trump, who described aid to Israel as a political liability, announced the U.S. would end nearly $4 billion in annual military aid to Israel by the end of the year.
The post Providence voters pass ballot initiative that could lead to divestment of city funds from Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Republican Lawler concedes to Democrat Conley in fierce battle for Jewish vote in NYC suburbs
(JTA) — Republican congressman Mike Lawler has conceded to Democratic challenger Cait Conley, a former national security official, after competing fiercely for Jewish voters in the lower Hudson Valley of New York.
Lawler has been a staunchly pro-Israel member since joining Congress in 2023, and was endorsed by the Republican Jewish Coalition and the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.
Conley was endorsed by the pro-Israel group Democratic Majority for Israel, and has said she supports Israel while opposing the Benjamin Netanyahu government.
Lawler, who is Catholic, has deep ties to the district’s large Orthodox Jewish population, and touted their support recently when asked about the neck-and-neck polling.
Both Lawler and Conley have tried tying their opponent to polarizing figures in their respective parties. Lawler has asserted that Conley, a moderate, will not separate herself from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and particularly New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has a lower favorability rating outside the city. Conley denounced Mamdani’s statement on the three-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 attack after Lawler challenged her to do so during a debate.
Conley, meanwhile, has tied Lawler to President Donald Trump, accusing him of being a rubber stamp for Trump’s legislative priorities.
The post Republican Lawler concedes to Democrat Conley in fierce battle for Jewish vote in NYC suburbs appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In early LA mayoral results, Karen Bass holds slim lead over Nithya Raman, who sparred with DSA on Israel
Early returns in the Los Angeles mayoral election showed incumbent Karen Bass with a slim lead over Councilmember Nithya Raman, whose comments on Israel became a flashpoint in the race.
The first batch of results — totaling about 500,000 votes — showed Bass leading Raman, 50.8% to 49.2%.
The final outcome may not be known until Wednesday or later, a common occurrence in tight California races due to the preponderance of mail-in ballots. Nearly 90% of California voters did so by mail in the June primary.
But if the primary results are any indication, Bass’ lead may evaporate as more votes are counted.
In the June 2 open primary — a system in which the top two vote-getters from any party advance to a runoff — Raman trailed a Republican, Spencer Pratt, by eight points for second place behind Bass. She won the ensuing batches of mail-in ballots, but did not pass Pratt until June 7. She ultimately surpassed him by more than four percentage points.
Raman, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has clashed with the organization — and frustrated many of her Jewish constituents — while trying to strike a balance on Israel. She has called the war in Gaza a genocide, but declined to adopt the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions platform — a stance that led the DSA to consider expelling her.
Bass, a mainstream Democrat who served six terms in Congress before running for mayor in 2022, entered the race as a historically unpopular incumbent, largely thanks to her response to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. Raman endorsed Bass prior to declaring her own candidacy on the last day to enter the race, a move Bass has characterized as a personal betrayal.
The polls swung back and forth in the weeks leading up to the election. Bass, who won most labor endorsements, was leading until September, when one poll sponsored by the Los Angeles Times showed Raman ahead by 11 points with a third of voters still undecided. A follow-up poll by the Times last week showed the two in a dead heat.
Unlike many other DSA candidates up for election across the country on Tuesday, Raman, an urban policy wonk who immigrated to the U.S. from India when she was 6, never made Israel a focal point of her campaign. Instead, she focused more on housing, homelessness and budget policy.
But her membership in the DSA, an interview she granted Hasan Piker during the primary and the genocide comments dogged her anyway, especially among Jewish Angelenos.
Raman, after publicly condemning the DSA’s anti-Israel statements after Oct. 7, sponsored a resolution for a ceasefire and return of hostages in March 2024, disappointing mainstream Jewish groups who called the motion one-sided. Then, during the primary, Raman told Piker she believed the Gaza war was a genocide and that Israel was an apartheid state. She also said she would not seek the endorsement of pro-Israel Democratic party groups as she had in 2024.
Her record on Israel seemed likely to come up when Raman participated in the candidate forum for Jewish voters Sept. 29. But Raman struggled to get through answers about the DSA, Piker and especially genocide and BDS — which she called a “legitimate form of peaceful protest” — leading to loud audience groans. During Bass’ turn on stage, the mayor said she did not support BDS and did not believe the war in Gaza was a genocide.
Mail-in voters historically skew to the left, and the primary vote may offer a preview of the margin Raman might need.
In that election, about 58% of the total votes were tallied election night, when Bass led Raman 36.5% to 21%. Raman got the biggest share of the ensuing ballot batches, beating Bass by about five percentage points.
The post In early LA mayoral results, Karen Bass holds slim lead over Nithya Raman, who sparred with DSA on Israel appeared first on The Forward.
