Uncategorized
Meir Shalev and Yehonatan Geffen were Israeli cultural royalty. Their deaths leave a hole on the left.
(JTA) — Over the last few months, since the far-right government announced its plans for an overarching constitutional overhaul, Israel’s embattled liberal camp has experienced a renaissance. Unprecedented mobilization on the part of protesting masses, business leaders and the IDF vanguard has left the government in disarray and, in the wake of a seemingly endless string of electoral defeats, invigorated the left to an extent that it had not seen since the 1990s. The left may be dead, but it is not quite buried yet.
But amid this process of rejuvenation and weeks before Israel celebrated its 75th anniversary, the Israeli left experienced two symbolic blows in ironic proximity when two cultural titans died within days of each other.
Meir Shalev, an eminent novelist, and Yehonatan Geffen, an incredibly prolific journalist, author and songwriter, were also prominent public intellectuals. Both had spent decades dabbling in current affairs as columnists for the mass-circulation dailies Yedioth Aharonoth and Maariv, respectively.
Shalev was 74 when he died on April 11. Geffen, who died on April 19, was 76.
The symbolism did not stop at their premature and almost simultaneous passing. It was, rather, the final chapter of two lives that also began in great proximity: Shalev and Geffen were born a little over a year apart in the agricultural community of Nahalal, the Camelot of the Labor Zionism movement. Both were descendants of Zionist aristocracy: Shalev’s father was the Jerusalemite author and educator Yithzak Shalev, and Geffen’s maternal uncle the legendary general-turned-politician Moshe Dayan. Like many of their cohort, they were groomed for the driving seat of the newborn State of Israel.
Their formidable life’s work, thus, was largely an ongoing attempt to deal with the burden bestowed upon them by their pedigrees. And this is where they differ, despite the eerie similarities in their biographies.
Many of Shalev’s novels, especially the earlier ones, were loving tributes to his lineage. They included “A Pigeon and A Boy,” which is set during the War of Independence and won the National Jewish Book Award in 2006, and “The Blue Mountain,” set on a moshav (an agricultural cooperative) shortly before the founding of Israel. Though never overly sentimental and always strewn with a heavy dose of irony, Shalev’s writings were adoring accounts of a bygone generation, complete with their shtick and quirks and foibles. His protagonists were shrouded in a certain mythology, which Shalev did not labor to deconstruct entirely; he was just attempting to humanize and bring them down to earth.
But while Shalev looked up to his parents’ generation, Geffen blew a raspberry in their faces. He was part of a tight cohort of musicians and artists who grew up in Israel post-independence — a tribe that included David Broza, Arik Einstein, Gidi Gov, Shalom Hanoch and Yehudit Ravitz, all household names in Israel. Geffen’s song “Could It Be Over?”, featured on Arik Einstein’s 1973 album sporting the deliberately ironic title “Good Old Israel,” exemplifies the challenging relationship. From the opening line (“They say it was fun before I was born, and everything was just splendid until I arrived”), the song is a mischievous and self-deprecating take on Israel’s founding myths. Enumerating them one by one — the draining of the swamps, the heroic battles for Jewish sovereignty, the nascent Hebrew culture in the pre-state Yishuv — Geffen sarcastically concludes: “They had a reason to get up in the morning.”
More broadly, Geffen was bent on smashing every aspect of the Zionist ethos. In defiance of the image of the Hebrew warrior, of which his uncle Moshe was the poster boy, Geffen was an adamant pacifist as well as, famously, a very bad soldier himself. Having been called for reserve service during the first Lebanon War, in 1982, he was performing for soldiers ahead of the IDF offensive on Beirut when he was dragged off stage by the commanding officer for calling on the troops to refuse. His song “The Little Prince of Company B” (sung by Shem-Tov Levy), about a timid and frail fallen soldier praised as a hero against his will, was one of the first and best-remembered anti-war songs in the Hebrew canon.
Geffen’s counterculture instincts were informed by his great American heroes — notably the Jewish iconoclasts Bob Dylan and Lenny Bruce — and this admiration was in itself a jab at his upbringing, characterized by vain parochialism masquerading as self-sufficiency. Geffen felt more at home in New York (where he spent several years) and Tel Aviv than in the fields of the Jezreel Valley; his tools were not a sickle and a plow, but rather a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of whisky.
Shalev, in his political writing, also advocated for left-of-center politics that is sometimes derisively described as “Ashkenazi”: moderate, civil, Western in its orientation, calling to rally around a common good — a type of political discourse that, as recent events show, speaks to fewer and fewer Israelis. “The Israeli public is moving more and more to the right. The war in 1967 may have destroyed Israel,” he told an interviewer in 2017. “We took a big bite that is now suffocating us. All Israel has done since 1967 is deal with aspects of the occupation. Israel has not been dealing with the things I feel it should deal with. With my political views, I am a minority in Israel.”
Shalev was a pastor of sorts; Geffen was sometimes a Jeremiah and sometimes a court jester, and often both.
They were representatives of two distinct streams within the traditionally fragmented Israeli left; the very same left that, despite the current resurgence, seems too often to have more streams than members.
—
The post Meir Shalev and Yehonatan Geffen were Israeli cultural royalty. Their deaths leave a hole on the left. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
US Sends Additional Arms to Israel to Sustain Iran Operations
The first of two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors is launched during a successful intercept test. Photo: US Army.
i24 News – The United States has recently increased shipments of munitions to Israel to support ongoing Israeli air operations against Iran.
According to reports broadcast by the public radio network Kan Reshet Bet, several weapons deliveries have arrived in Israel in recent days as part of what officials describe as an ongoing airlift aimed at sustaining the pace of military strikes.
Since the start of the campaign, Israeli forces are believed to have dropped more than 11,000 bombs on targets across Iran.
The shipments come as reports emerge about a potential shortage of ballistic missile interceptors in Israel. US officials told the news outlet Semafor that Israel’s interceptor stockpiles have been heavily used during the conflict.
According to those sources, Washington had already been aware for months that supplies could become strained, though it remains unclear whether the United States would be willing to share its own interceptor reserves. Israeli officials have since rejected claims that such a shortage exists.
Unlike the Iron Dome, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and projectiles, ballistic missile interceptors serve as Israel’s primary defense against long-range missile threats. Fighter jets can also be used to attempt interceptions, though this method is considered a supplementary measure to missile defense systems.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government has taken additional budgetary steps to support the war effort. During an overnight vote between Saturday and Sunday, ministers approved a roughly 1 billion shekel reduction across various ministry budgets to help finance classified military purchases linked to Operation “Roar of the Lion.”
The government had already approved a 3 percent cut in ministry budgets, a move expected to increase the defense budget by approximately 30 billion shekels as the conflict continues.
Uncategorized
Pope Leo Decries ‘Atrocious Violence’ in Iran War, Urges Ceasefire
Pope Leo XIV leads the Angelus prayer from a window of the Apostolic Palace, at the Vatican, March 15, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Matteo Minnella
Pope Leo made an impassioned plea on Sunday for an immediate ceasefire in the expanding Iran war, lamenting “atrocious violence” that he said had killed thousands of non-combatants and caused suffering across the region.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its third week, the first US pope warned that violence would not bring the justice, stability and peace that the peoples of the region long for.
“For two weeks, the peoples of the Middle East have been suffering the atrocious violence of war,” the pope said at his weekly Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square.
“In the name of Christians in the Middle East and of all women and men of good will, I appeal to those responsible for this conflict: Cease fire!” Pope Leo said.
IDEA THAT WAR SOLVES PROBLEMS IS ‘ABSURD’
Leo added that the situation in Lebanon – ravaged by a war between Israel and the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah – was also a cause of “great concern.”
“I hope for paths of dialogue that can support the country’s authorities in implementing lasting solutions to the serious crisis currently underway, for the common good of all the Lebanese people,” the pope said.
During a visit to a Rome parish later, the pope said war could never resolve problems and hit out at people who invoke God to justify killings.
“Today many of our brothers and sisters in the world are suffering because of violent conflicts, caused by the absurd claim that problems and disagreements can be resolved through war, when instead we must engage in unceasing dialogue for peace,” he said during his homily.
“Some even go so far as to invoke the name of God to justify these choices of death, but God cannot be enlisted by darkness. Rather, He always comes to bring light, hope and peace to humanity.”
Uncategorized
US, China Economic Chiefs Meet in Paris to Clear Path to Trump-Xi Summit
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping talk as they leave after a bilateral meeting at Gimhae International Airport, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, in Busan, South Korea, Oct. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Top US and Chinese economic officials wrapped up the first of two days of talks in Paris on Sunday to iron out kinks in their trade truce and clear a path for US President Donald Trump’s trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the end of March.
The discussions, led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, were expected to focus on shifting US tariffs, the flow of Chinese-produced rare earth minerals and magnets to US buyers, American high-tech export controls and Chinese purchases of US agricultural products.
The two sides met for more than six hours at the Paris headquarters of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, with talks to resume on Monday morning, a Treasury spokesperson said. China is not a member of the club of 38 mostly wealthy democracies and considers itself a developing country.
The spokesperson did not provide any details on the tone or substance of the talks, and Chinese officials left the OECD without speaking to reporters.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who is participating in the talks, said on Friday that US officials want to ensure stability in the US-China relationship.
“We want to make sure that we continue to get the rare earths we need for our manufacturing base, that they keep buying the kinds of things they should be buying from us, and that the leaders have a chance to get together and make sure that the relationship is going the way we want it to go,” Greer told CNBC before departing for Paris.
The talks between Bessent, He, Greer and China trade negotiator Li Chenggang follow a string of their meetings in European cities last year to ease trade tensions that threatened a near collapse of trade between the world’s two largest economies.
US-China trade analysts said that with little time to prepare and Washington’s attention focused on the US-Israeli war on Iran, prospects for a major trade breakthrough are limited, in Paris or at the Beijing summit.
“Both sides, I think have a minimum goal of having a meeting, which sort of keeps things together and avoids a rupture and re-escalation of tensions,” said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Trump may want to come away from Beijing with major Chinese commitments to order new Boeing aircraft and buy more US liquefied natural gas and soybeans, but to get that he may need to offer some concession on US export controls, Kennedy added.
Trump and Xi could potentially meet three other times this year, including at a China-hosted APEC summit in November and a US-hosted G20 summit in December that could yield more tangible progress.
IRAN WAR OIL CONCERNS
The Iran war will likely come up at the Paris talks, especially in reference to the spike in oil prices and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which China gets 45 percent of its oil. Bessent on Thursday announced a 30-day waiver of sanctions to allow the sale of Russian oil stranded at sea in tankers, a move to raise supplies.
On Saturday, Trump urged other nations to help protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, after Washington bombed military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island oil loading hub and Iran threatened to retaliate.
“Meaningful” progress in Sino‑US economic cooperation could restore confidence to an increasingly fragile global economy, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency said in a commentary on Sunday.
TRADE TRUCE REVIEW
The two sides are expected to review their progress in meeting commitments under the October 2025 trade truce declared by Trump and Xi in Busan, South Korea. The deal forestalled a major flare-up in tensions, trimmed US tariffs on Chinese imports, and paused for a year China’s draconian export controls on rare earths. It also paused the expansion of a US blacklist of Chinese companies banned from buying high-technology US goods such as semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
China also agreed to buy 12 million metric tons of US soybeans during the 2025 marketing year and 25 million tons in the 2026 season, which will start with the autumn harvest.
US officials, including Bessent, have said China has so far met its commitments under the Busan deal, citing soybean purchases that met initial goals.
But while some industries are receiving rare earth exports from China, which dominates global production, US aerospace and semiconductor companies are not and are facing worsening shortages of key materials, including yttrium, used in heat-resistant coatings for jet engines.
“US priorities will likely be about agricultural purchases by China and greater access to Chinese rare earths in the short term” at the Paris talks, said William Chou, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.
NEW TRADE PROBES
Greer and Bessent also bring a new irritant to the Paris talks, a “Section 301” investigation into unfair trade practices targeting China and 15 other major trading partners over alleged excess industrial capacity that could lead to a new round of tariffs within months. Greer also launched a similar probe into alleged forced labor practices in 60 countries, including China, that could ban certain imports into the US.
The probes aim to rebuild tariff pressure on trading partners after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s global tariffs under an emergency law as illegal. The ruling effectively reduced Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods by 20 percentage points, but he immediately imposed a 10 percent global tariff under another trade law.
China on Friday denounced the probes and said it reserved the right to take countermeasures. An editorial by state-run China Daily added that the probes were representative of unilateral actions that complicate negotiations.
“The new round of talks is both an opportunity and a test,” Xinhua said.
“Whether the upcoming talks can achieve progress will largely depend on the U.S. side. Washington needs to approach the negotiations with a rational and pragmatic mindset and act in line with the principles that underpin stable China-US economic relations.”