Uncategorized
Jewish institutions have a tool for fighting climate change: their bank accounts
(JTA) — The last eight years have been the hottest in recorded history, causing untold damage across the world — and that destruction is not something that we can reverse with the flick of a switch. We can’t instantly turn back the floods in California nor solve its decade-long drought. We can’t immediately end the wildfires in Colorado, hurricanes in Florida or flash floods in the Northeast and California.
But the American Jewish community has an important role to play in addressing the underlying cause of these devastating events and avoiding an ever-increasing cascade of destruction and harm.
Many of us are members of Jewish organizations or congregations that, often unknowingly, support fossil fuel companies. Even as we work to cut our carbon footprints, our investments are financing Exxon’s and Chevron’s expansion in fossil fuels. A recent report by the organization I lead, Dayenu, found that a sample of major Jewish organizations had over $3 billion invested in fossil fuel companies. According to Fossil Free Funds and the EPA, that’s $3 billion invested in coal, oil and gas companies that extract and burn carbon responsible for the equivalent of running 561,276 cars on the road for a year.
By reallocating that money from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels to investing in clean energy, we can turn our communal assets from a net cost to the earth to a net gain for our future.
The way forward is clear. The world’s leading scientists tell us that to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis, we must halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and end all climate pollution no later than 2050. Fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — are the leading contributors to climate change, responsible for 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydropower are already cheaper, more reliable, and more lucrative for investors — while creating millions of jobs.
The vast majority of American Jews support bold climate action. A 2014 study found that 8 out of 10 American Jews were concerned or alarmed about the climate crisis. Since then, climate has become a top concern for American Jews, consistently ranking as a priority issue for American Jewish voters, especially young people. Initiatives like the Jewish Climate Leadership Coalition are helping institutions cut their emissions, and there is growing interest in socially responsible and impact investing.
These steps show a commitment to taking action — but much more is needed to reach the scale necessary to confront climate change. Over the past few years, Brandeis, a university “animated by Jewish values, rooted in Jewish history and experience,” decided to turn concern into action.
Joining Harvard, Yale and other universities, Brandeis divested some $997 million from fossil fuel companies in 2018. But University President Ronald Liebowitz said a recent decision to further reduce exposure to fossil fuels and expand investments in clean energy helps move the university to further align with its Jewish values and become “a Brandeis that strives to reflect one of its highest values: using one’s talents to repair the world — in word and deed.”
It’s not just institutions of higher education. Thousands of other organizations have already moved their money from fossil fuels to clean energy investments. Sovereign states like Norway, major retirement plans like New York City’s pension funds, and numerous faith organizations have all moved their resources in ways designed to make them agents of a sustainable future.
Now Jewish organizations, institutions and communities can join them. As part of the report “With All Our Might: Bechol M’odecha: How the Jewish Community Can Invest in a Just, Livable Future,” Dayenu lays out a six-step Roadmap for Change to help the Jewish community better align its investments with its values. Beginning with Jewish learning, or reishit chochma (grounding), the steps guide institutional leaders through cheshbon (research investments), limmud (education), sicha (engagement), kavanah (making a plan) and kadima (moving your money).
Larger institutions will focus on their asset managers, while congregations and smaller organizations will focus on their banks. By advocating publicly and privately with both banks and asset managers — the two primary financiers of fossil fuel extraction — to reinvest their money, Jewish organizations can educate their communities about sustainability and finance. Vocally aligning their finances with their values, the Jewish community can help speed a movement away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy at the pace that we, and future generations, need to survive.
And, make no mistake, it’s a race against time. The International Energy Agency — the world’s most respected energy analysis group — says that to reach zero emissions by 2050, we need to invest $4 in clean energy for every $1 in fossil fuels every year for the next few decades. However, since the Paris Agreement was signed, asset managers and banks have put trillions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry. To win this race, we need to use the lever of private finance. Faced with pressure from whole sections of the public — including the Jewish community — companies like BlackRock, Citigroup, JPMorganChase and Vanguard could be persuaded to hasten the transition to clean energy.
The American Jewish community is well-positioned to take meaningful climate action. Like other faith traditions, we are well-organized, and our institutions have an estimated $100 billion of investment assets. Following Dayenu’s six-point roadmap, we can withhold the Jewish community’s financial support for dirty energy and instead invest in renewables. By raising our voices alongside the many investors who are calling for change, we can accelerate the transition to a clean energy future. As floods, fires, and heat waves come with alarmingly greater frequency and severity, we know we have no time to waste.
—
The post Jewish institutions have a tool for fighting climate change: their bank accounts appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.