Uncategorized
Multiple efforts in Jewish sovereignty have self-destructed after 75 years. Can Israel defy history — again?
(JTA) — This week marks Yom Haatzmaut, our beloved Israel’s 75th birthday — the day on the Hebrew calendar when David Ben-Gurion proclaimed “the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate” by establishing a Jewish state in the land of Israel. Together with countless Jews around the world, we express our gratitude to be alive at this moment in history when the Jewish people have sovereignty and a nation to call their own.
But on this anniversary, Yom Haatzmaut’s special prayers and festive afternoon barbecues fail to capture the fraught feelings many of us are experiencing. Jews across the globe in all our different peculiarities and particularities — from all political orientations, religious and secular, progressive and conservative, for and against the judicial overhaul being proposed by the current government — are reeling.
The past few months of terrible turmoil in Israel surrounding the judicial overhaul proposal have shown us how fragile our singular and precious Jewish state is. While Israel’s history is replete with instances when external forces threatened its people, this moment is unique in revealing internal threats to its democracy and social cohesion. We have seen toxic hatred rising among Israeli Jews, with fears of a civil war at an all-time high.
How, then, are we supposed to celebrate Israel on its 75th birthday?
The answer to this question lies at the heart of Jewish history and reveals that now is the moment for a new Zionist revolution led by both Israeli and Diaspora Jews.
Zionism was never just about establishing a Jewish state. It was about defying Jewish history. In 1948, when Ben-Gurion and his fellow Zionist leaders declared Israeli independence, it was nothing less than a radical assault on diasporic Jewish history. It defied the thousands of years of Jews being a minority in other countries, subject to the whims and caprice of other rulers. It defied the image of the weak and defenseless Jew. It even defied Jewish tradition itself, which for centuries was understood by many of its adherents to demand passivity by Jews as they waited for divine deliverance.
For two millennia, Jewish existence was one of vulnerability and victimhood — most often either hiding who we are or suffering for it. The Zionism of 1948 defied diasporic Jewish history by giving Jews power, self-determination and sovereignty to respond to external threats and establish a Jewish state.
Understandably, most of the work of early Zionism was focused on mere survival — establishing a state, providing safe refuge to the millions of Jews fleeing inhospitable lands and contending with enemy countries sworn to destroy the new nation. It succeeded beyond any of the wildest imaginations of its founders. The first 75 years of Israel, in which it has become a powerful and thriving state, are a testament to the success of Zionism in defying diasporic Jewish history.
But the next 75 years of Zionism present and impose on us a different task: To be Zionists today means we must defy a different chapter of Jewish history — one that might be called sovereign Jewish history.
Historians and educators have pointed out a critically important pattern in the history of Jewish self-rule. There are two pre-modern eras in which the Jewish nation enjoyed sovereignty in the land of Israel: at the end of the 11th century BCE with the Davidic Kingdom and the first Temple in Jerusalem, and in 140 BCE when the Hasmonean dynasty reestablished Jewish independence in Judea. But as each approached their 75th year of existence, each started to disintegrate because of internal strife and infighting. The Davidic reign over a united Israel effectively ended when it was split into the two competing kingdoms of Judea and Israel. The Hasmonean kingdom began to fall apart due to infighting between the sons of Alexander and Shlomtzion, the rulers of Judea in the first century BCE.
Sovereign Jewish history tells us that at around the 75th year, experiments in Jewish self-determination faced the most dangerous threat of all: self-destruction.
On its 75th birthday, Israel and its supporters face the internal tensions of sovereignty: What does it mean for Israel to be both a Jewish and democratic state and a home to all its citizens? How can Israel be both at home in the Middle East while modeled on Western democracies? How should its leaders balance majority Jewish culture with minority rights?
The concerns of the old Zionism certainly still exist: how to pursue peace even as Jewish vulnerability and safety continue to be threatened. But they take on a new character in this day and age, forcing us to ask how we can manage and embrace conflicting visions of Jewishness and Israeliness while nurturing social solidarity and cooperation across deep and painful divides.
This Yom Haatzmaut comes at a moment of rupture. But the current crisis in Israel represents an opportunity – a moment for our generation to ensure this rupture defies the pattern of sovereign Jewish history. The generations before us proved that we can rewrite diasporic history, turning a tale of vulnerability and weakness into one of strength and power. Our generation and those that follow must likewise defy sovereign Jewish history and prove that we can protect our Jewish state from the internal threats it faces. Our generation’s task is to overcome our divisions and not let fraternal hatred destroy our shared home.
On this 75th birthday, then, let us learn from our past and look forward toward a new future. Let us continue to celebrate the incredible success by writing a new chapter in the magnificent story of Israel and Zionism.
—
The post Multiple efforts in Jewish sovereignty have self-destructed after 75 years. Can Israel defy history — again? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Some US Senators Skeptical About Military Options for Iran
Demonstrators and activists rally in support of nationwide protests in Iran, outside the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 10, 2026. REUTERS/Tom Brenner
Some US lawmakers in both major parties on Sunday questioned whether military action against Iran is the best approach for the United States as Iranian authorities face growing turmoil.
US President Donald Trump in recent days has left open the possibility of American intervention in Iran, where the biggest anti-government protests in years have led to the Revolutionary Guards blaming unrest on terrorists and vowing to safeguard the governing system.
But at least two US senators sounded notes of caution during interviews on TV networks’ Sunday morning programs.
“I don’t know that bombing Iran will have the effect that is intended,” Republican Senator Rand Paul said on ABC News’ “This Week” show.
Rather than undermining the regime, a military attack on Iran could rally the people against an outside enemy, Paul and Democratic Senator Mark Warner said.
Warner, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” warned that a military strike against Iran could risk uniting Iranians against the United States “in a way that the regime has not been able to.” History shows the dangers of US intervention, said Warner, who argued that the US-backed 1953 overthrow of Iran’s government set in motion a chain of events that gradually led to the rise of the country’s Islamic regime in the late 1970s.
The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that US military and diplomatic officials will brief Trump on Tuesday about options for Iran, including cyberattacks and potential military action.
Iran has said it will target US military bases if the United States launches an attack. But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has often touted a muscular approach to foreign policy, said Trump “needs to embolden the protesters and scare the hell out of the [Iranian] regime.”
“If I were you, Mr. President, I would kill the leadership that are killing the people,” Graham said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” show. “You’ve got to end this.”
Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of the Iranian shah who was ousted in 1979, said on Sunday he is prepared to return to Iran to lead a shift to a democratic government.
“I’m already planning on that,” Pahlavi said on “Sunday Morning Futures.” “My job is to lead this transition to make sure that no stone is left unturned, that in full transparency, people have an opportunity to elect their leaders freely and to decide their own future.”
Uncategorized
Bob Weir, Grateful Dead Co-Founder and Rhythm Guitarist, Dead at 78
Bob Weir poses at the red carpet during the 67th Annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles, California, U.S., February 2, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole
Veteran rock musician Bob Weir, the Grateful Dead’s rhythm guitarist who helped guide the legendary psychedelic jam band through decades of change and success, has died at age 78, his family said in a statement on Saturday.
He was diagnosed with cancer in July and “succumbed to underlying lung issues” surrounded by loved ones, according to the statement, posted on Weir‘s verified Instagram account. It did not mention when or where he died.
Just weeks after starting cancer treatment last summer, Weir had returned to his “hometown stage” at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco to play in a three-night celebration of his 60 years in music, his family recalled. Those shows turned out to be his final live public performances, according to Rolling Stone magazine.
Along with his late fellow Grateful Dead co-founder and lead guitarist Jerry Garcia, who was at the center of the universe for “Deadheads,” as diehard Dead fans are known, Weir was one of the group’s two frontmen and main vocalists for most of the band’s history.
It was Weir who sang the verses on the band’s trademark boogie anthem, “Truckin’,” and who wrote such key songs as “Sugar Magnolia,” “Playing in the Band” and “Jack Straw.”
The youthful, ponytailed “Bobby” grew into an eclectic songwriter whose handsome appearance and diverse musical influences helped broaden the band’s appeal. British newspaper the Independent called Weir “arguably rock’s greatest, if most eccentric, rhythm guitarist.”
After Garcia’s death at age 53 in 1995, Weir carved out an interesting if somewhat neglected solo career – much of it with his band, RatDog – and participated in reunions of surviving Dead members in different configurations.
LONG STRANGE TRIP
“As the one good-looking guy in the Dead, baby-faced Weir was always what passed for the band’s sex symbol,” the San Francisco Chronicle‘s Joel Selvin wrote in 2004. “He didn’t care about that, either. In fact, he always seemed to secretly relish subverting that image.”
Weir was the subject of the 2014 documentary “The Other One: The Long, Strange Trip of Bob Weir,” which made a case for the Dead’s “other” guitarist as a musical force. Though some Deadheads adopted the trappings of tie-dyed psychedelia, the group itself was deeply attached to American roots music and was credited with bringing experimental improvisation to rock music.
Weir‘s own musical tastes ranged from Chuck Berry to cowboy songs to R&B and reggae.
Thanks to relentless touring, constant musical evolution and a passionate fan base, the Grateful Dead – who existed from 1965 to 1995 – did not have to rely on producing hit records.
“Bob was the wild one,” journalist Blair Jackson wrote in 2012. “He was the rock ‘n’ roller, but also the confident, smooth-voiced narrator on all those dramatic country-rock numbers about desperadoes and fugitives; a perfect fit for those tunes. He was the guy who would screech and scream himself hoarse at the end of the show, whipping us into a dancing frenzy.”
Weir, whose birth name was Robert Hall Parber, was born on October 16, 1947, and raised by adoptive parents in Atherton, California. He did not excel in school, due in part to his undiagnosed dyslexia. In 1964 at age 16, he met Bay Area folk musician Garcia, with whom he formed the Warlocks, who soon morphed into the Grateful Dead.
THE KID
The athletic Weir, who enjoyed football, was the youngest member of the original band and was sometimes referred to as “the kid.”
He was still in high school when he joined up with Garcia, bass guitarist Phil Lesh, organist-vocalist-harmonica player Ron “Pigpen” McKernan and drummer Bill Kreutzmann.
Lesh recalled in his 2005 autobiography that he and Garcia had to make a promise to young Bob‘s mother. “The long and short of it was that if Jerry and I promised to make sure that Bob got to school every day, and that he got home all right after the gigs, she would allow him to remain in the band,” wrote Lesh, who died in October 2024 at age 84. “We somehow convinced her that we would indeed see that he got to school every day. In San Francisco. At 8:00 a.m.”
Eventually Weir moved in to the communal Dead house at 710 Ashbury Street in San Francisco. The group’s first album, “The Grateful Dead,” was released in March 1967.
According to some accounts, Weir was briefly fired from the band in 1968 because his guitar skills were deemed lacking. But he either redoubled his efforts or the others had second thoughts, because he was soon back in. By the time of the band’s two famous 1970 albums, “Workingman’s Dead” and “American Beauty,” Weir was a key contributor.
His 1972 solo album, “Ace,” was a de facto Grateful Dead album that featured Garcia and the others and included well-regarded Weir songs including “Cassidy,” “Black-Throated Wind,” “Mexicali Blues” and “Looks Like Rain.” Many of his best-known songs were co-written with his old school friend, John Perry Barlow, who died in 2018.
As the band’s rhythm guitarist, Weir often played little fills, riffs and figures instead of straight chords. “I derived a lot of what I do on guitar from listening to piano players,” he told GQ magazine in 2019, citing McCoy Tyner’s work with saxophonist John Coltrane. “He would constantly nudge and coax amazing stuff out of Coltrane.”
Even decades after Garcia’s death, Weir never forgot the influence of his old friend. He told GQ that Garcia was still present when Weir played guitar. “I can hear him: ‘Don’t go there. Don’t go there,’ or ‘Go here. Go here,’” Weir said. “And either I listen or I don’t, depending on how I’m feeling. But it’s always ‘How’s old Jerry going to feel about this riff?’ Sometimes I know he’d hate it. But he’d adjust.”
In 2017, Weir was appointed as a United Nations Development Program goodwill ambassador to support the agency’s work to end poverty while fighting climate change.
Weir married Natascha Muenter in 1999. They had two daughters.
“Looking back,” Weir once said, “I guess I have lived an unusual life.”
Uncategorized
Israeli Intelligence: Iran’s Regime at Most Fragile Point Since 1999
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei listens to the national anthem as Air Force officers salute during their meeting in Tehran, Iran, February 7, 2025. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – Israeli intelligence officials assess that Iran’s ruling Ayatollah regime is at its most fragile point in more than two decades, as nationwide protests continue to escalate.
The scale of the demonstrations and the government’s response have prompted deep concern in Jerusalem.
A near-total internet shutdown is being interpreted as a troubling signal of severe events unfolding on the streets, including widespread killings that remain largely undocumented. Despite protests erupting in roughly 100 cities across Iran, very little video footage has emerged, further underscoring the regime’s clampdown.
Israeli officials warn that the situation could pose a real threat to the stability of Tehran’s leadership if demonstrations continue to grow. However, sources stress that the outcome is highly uncertain. A potential collapse of the regime would not necessarily lead to a democratic government, and intermediate scenarios—such as the replacement of leaders with regents or puppet figures—are also possible.
“The situation is far more complex than it appears,” said a source familiar with security discussions to i24NEWS. “No one truly knows how events will unfold, and we are monitoring every development with extreme caution to determine the best response.”
For now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach is described internally as “monitoring, supporting, hoping.” Israel is keeping a careful distance, allowing Washington to take the lead in applying international pressure on Tehran, while ensuring that the protest movement cannot be linked to Jerusalem in any public way.
Israel’s security establishment continues to follow developments closely, preparing for multiple scenarios in an environment where uncertainty and volatility remain exceptionally high.