Uncategorized
Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril
For much of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current term, Israelis have been told that they are on the verge of a historic military triumph. Netanyahu has been promising “total victory” since early 2024.
Yet the public mood inside Israel has darkened rather than lifted. After nearly three years of war, none of our enemies have actually been vanquished.
The war with Iran may resume at any moment, and the Iranian regime shows no sign of collapse, or of acquiescence to Israeli-American terms. Iran’s proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen — all soldier on, certainly bruised but strangely unbowed.
And in Israel, reservists continue to be called up, and soldiers continue to die. Israel has absorbed devastating reputational damage, and the sense that the country has no positive political horizon has hardened into exhaustion.
As that exhaustion translates into polling that should terrify the prime minister, Israel faces an unprecedented internal danger: that Netanyahu will use a state of permanent emergency he has worked to enshrine to cancel upcoming elections altogether.
Over the weekend, the combined party of former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid passed Netanyahu in many of the polls. Per one poll, the opposition together is now leading him by 71 to 49 seats — a 19-seat swing relative to the current Knesset. And because several small opposition-aligned parties are currently polling below the electoral threshold, the actual anti-government majority in a real election could be larger still.
The direction of travel is clear, the deficit in the polls for the right-religious bloc is huge, and the danger for Netanyahu is real. He faces a plausible future in which he not only loses power in the election that by law must be held by the end of October, but loses decisively.
That’s why many Israelis suspect the election may not occur.
In a recent Hebrew-language column, Haaretz writer Ravit Hecht wrote that when Netanyahu “ is vulnerable and lagging behind, he is at his most dangerous.”.
“Netanyahu will try to ignite an external front — preferably with Iran — in order to manufacture a state of emergency.,” Hecht added. “If he fails to maneuver Donald Trump into renewing the war with Iran, and if that leaves his hands tied in Lebanon or constrains his moves in Gaza, he will inflame the domestic front instead.”
Victory, or emergency
Netanyahu may see two possible lifelines.
The first: political redemption through the kind of overwhelming victory he’s been promising for years. If the Iranian regime were somehow destabilized or collapsed, Netanyahu could argue that history had vindicated him. Enough Israelis who currently view the wars as endless and inconclusive might reinterpret the sacrifices as the painful prelude to a transformative strategic success.
The trouble: years of promising such a victory, with no clear returns, make its likelihood at this late hour very dubious.
The second possibility is darker and more dangerous: capitalizing on a state of permanent emergency.
Israel adopted a siege mentality during the six weeks of war with Iran, weathering mass missile barrages, civilian deaths and profoundly disrupted routines. If those conditions re-emerged under a resumption of war, the government could attempt to argue that national elections are impossible during wartime.
Ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition have spent years preparing the ideological ground for precisely such a claim — and the confrontation it would spark with Israel’s democratic institutions.
Netanyahu’s allies have portrayed the Supreme Court as governed by an illegitimate elite conspiracy. They describe judges not as guardians of the constitutional order but as enemies of the popular will. The current chief justice, Yitzhak Amit, has faced relentless delegitimization campaigns. Senior ministers have openly suggested that court rulings need not be obeyed.
Any attempt to delay or suspend elections would almost certainly trigger intervention by the court. Israel lacks a formal written constitution, but it possesses a dense web of so-called Basic Laws, precedents, and institutional norms that collectively form its constitutional structure. If the government attempted to legislate an indefinite postponement of elections under emergency conditions, the Supreme Court would likely strike the move down.
At that point, Israel could face a constitutional crisis unprecedented in its history: a government claiming emergency authority against a judiciary insisting on democratic continuity.
The government’s position would be strong, because Israel’s institutions are deeply dependent on executive cooperation. If a determined government sought to sabotage the electoral process indirectly while claiming national necessity, the Central Electoral Commission would face immense practical obstacles. At the same time, the Supreme Court lacks any practical enforcement mechanisms
An uncomfortable bargain
None of this means Israeli democracy is doomed. Israeli institutions remain resilient, civil society remains energetic, and public resistance to authoritarian overreach would likely be massive. But it does mean that scenarios once dismissed as hysterical are now being discussed openly by serious observers.
There is, however, another path still faintly visible.
Increasingly, Israeli political circles are discussing the possibility of a negotiated Netanyahu exit from public life. Netanyahu has already sought ways to terminate or freeze his ongoing corruption trial. Under Israeli practice, a presidential pardon generally requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and some expression of remorse.
If Netanyahu were willing to plead to a reduced offense such as breach of trust rather than the more severe bribery charges, President Isaac Herzog could potentially justify a pardon framed as an act of national reconciliation. Such an arrangement would go against Netanyahu’s pugnacious grain. But he may fear the humiliation of resounding defeat — and the end of any plausible excuses for delaying his trial — even more. It is even conceivable, although far from likely, that he would not choose to cause debilitating harm to Israel.
A bargain — Netanyahu steps back from politics in exchange for a pardon — would outrage many Israelis. Others would see it as a necessary escape hatch from national trauma. And Netanyahu himself would preserve a version of the story he has always wanted to tell: that of a historic statesman stepping aside after defending Israel through existential wars, not a defeated leader dragged from office in disgrace.
His supporters would accept the narrative. His opponents would accept the outcome. Israeli democracy, bruised and deeply damaged, would survive without crossing into outright institutional rupture.
It may be the least destructive option available. Democracies can survive flawed leaders. And Netanyahu, in his obsession with clinging to power, has made the need for this radical option existential.
The post Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
John Galliano bows out of Met exhibition as backlash over antisemitism mounts
(JTA) — John Galliano withdrew from a planned exhibition of his work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in response to a rapidly escalating controversy over the museum’s decision to honor the fashion designer despite his history of antisemitic and racist remarks.
Galliano said Monday that, after discussions with the Met and others involved in the exhibition, he had decided that it was best for the show not to take place “at this time.” He said he remained accountable for the pain caused by his past words, particularly to Jews and Asians, and recognized that an exhibition honoring his work could be painful for some. The Met said it agreed with his decision.
The reversal came less than a month after the Met announced that Galliano would be the subject of its spring 2027 Costume Institute exhibition, a rare honor that would have made him only the third living designer to receive a solo show there. The exhibition was to open in conjunction with the Met Gala, one of New York’s biggest annual cultural and celebrity events.
Opposition to the exhibition appeared to mount steadily in recent weeks. Early public pushback came from Dana Thomas, Galliano’s biographer, who wrote in an Aug. 6 New York Times guest essay that the Met had made a serious error in choosing to honor him. The criticism then broadened, with Jewish leaders, museum donors and New York politicians publicly urging the museum to reconsider.
Those criticizing the exhibition were New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin, who called the decision deeply painful for Jewish New Yorkers. Prominent Met donor Alice Tisch described the planned exhibition as a “whitewash,” according to the Times.
The reversal is also a setback for Anna Wintour, Condé Nast’s chief content officer and the driving force behind the Met Gala. She had championed Galliano for decades and was among the Met figures most closely associated with bringing the exhibition to the museum.
The controversy was complicated by the fact that some prominent rabbis had actually met with Galliano before the exhibition was announced and had come away believing that his repentance was sincere, as JTA reported earlier this month.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said Galliano had shown the contrition necessary to earn his return to the fashion world. Rabbi Joshua Davidson of Congregation Emanu-El, a Reform synagogue in New York, likewise said he was convinced by Galliano’s statements of remorse and his efforts to educate himself about Judaism and the Holocaust. Neither rabbi endorsed the Met’s decision to honor Galliano, however. Rather, both told the museum that if it proceeded, it had a responsibility to make Galliano’s antisemitic conduct and the lessons of his repentance an explicit part of the exhibition.
That distinction was reflected in the Met’s original plans. Andrew Bolton, the Costume Institute’s curator, said in announcing the exhibition that it would address Galliano’s antisemitic and anti-Asian conduct, as well as his firing from Dior, a hate speech conviction in France and his subsequent treatment for addiction and public acknowledgment of his actions.
Galliano, among the most celebrated designers in the world, was fired by Christian Dior in 2011 after a video surfaced showing him praising Hitler and making antisemitic remarks in a tirade in a Paris cafe, and directing an anti-Asian slur at the partner of a Jewish woman. A French court convicted him of making public insults based on race, religion and ethnicity.
After entering treatment for substance abuse, he embarked on a process of rehabilitation and eventually returned to the fashion industry. Abraham Foxman, then national director of the Anti-Defamation League, met privately with Galliano repeatedly; in 2013 the ADL said that Galliano had demonstrated “true contrition.”
After the initial announcement of the exhibition, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and national director of the ADL, noted that the organization had “long since accepted his apology,” but added that he understood “why some Jews may question the decision to include Galliano’s work in an exhibit given the massive spike in antisemitism in recent years.”
In a statement Monday, Greenblatt appeared to take a harder line in welcoming Galliano’s withdrawal.
“With antisemitism at crisis levels, the Met honoring John Galliano at this moment was misguided, and even Galliano ultimately recognized what the Met should have done from the start,” Greenblatt wrote on X. “This was the wrong move at the wrong moment. Timing matters.”
Galliano’s withdrawal leaves the Met without a planned spring 2027 Costume Institute exhibition. The museum said information about a replacement exhibition and the 2027 Met Gala will be announced later.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post John Galliano bows out of Met exhibition as backlash over antisemitism mounts appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Julie Moos Named as the Forward’s New Editor-in-Chief & Chief Content Officer
The Forward today announced the appointment of Julie Moos as Editor-in-Chief & Chief Content Officer. This newly created executive position merges newsroom leadership with audience strategy, positioning the nation’s premier independent Jewish news outlet to accelerate digital growth and serve audiences across platforms.
The appointment was announced by Forward Publisher & CEO Rachel Fishman Feddersen.
Moos, who joined the Forward in 2024 as Managing Editor for Audience, previously served as Interim Editor-in-Chief and Vice President for Audience & Strategy. In these roles, she advanced the publication’s digital content strategy and helped secure major grant funding, including a prestigious Luce Foundation award to support the “Holy Ground” series chronicling Jewish life and reinvention across rural and small-town America.
Under Moos’ leadership, the Forward has hit unprecedented growth milestones:
- Record Audience Scale: Surpassed 100 million total audience views in 2025 across web, video, audio and social channels, as measured by Brandwatch.
- Social Acceleration: Grew social media reach by 280%, expanding video reporting to meet the audience where they are.
- Critical Acclaim: Led the Jewish journalism field in reporting awards, including record recognition from the New York and Los Angeles press associations.
- Product Innovation: Successfully relaunched specialized newsletter offerings, including Antisemitism Decoded.
“Julie’s new role marks a pivotal shift toward a fully integrated structure that meets the demands of the rapidly changing news environment,” said Feddersen. “By bringing editorial stewardship and audience strategy under unified leadership, we can ensure our high-impact reporting meets readers where they consume media today, expanding our reach and amplifying the Forward’s mission to elevate issues vital to the American Jewish community.”
Joel F. Brown, Chairman of the Forward Board of Directors, added: “Julie has made important contributions to the Forward from her first days with us and our franchise will accelerate its growth significantly under her editorial leadership. She has a deep and authentic devotion to Jewish communal life which she braids brilliantly with her excellence in journalism and her advanced command of media distribution strategy. I am confident that her leadership will ensure the Forward remains the premier, trusted media source for American Jews.”
Moos said, “I’m honored to lead this incredible team at a moment of dramatic change in the Jewish world and in the media. For over a century, the Forward has been a trusted guide and voice of Jewish life in America. Today, that requires deep, principled reporting, groundbreaking storytelling and ongoing innovation — from dynamic newsletters to video and live events — to ensure our work invites conversation and connection everywhere people watch, listen, read, talk and meet.”
Moos is a nationally recognized editor and media leader who has served in senior roles at McClatchy Media, the National Press Club Journalism Institute and The Poynter Institute. She edited the New York Times bestseller President Obama Election 2008: A Collection of Newspaper Front Pages Selected by the Poynter Institute.
She lives in Alexandria, VA. She is a graduate of Barnard College and earned a nonprofit management certificate from Georgetown University, where she taught digital journalism at the graduate level. She serves as an ambassador for Central Synagogue’s online community, The Neighborhood, and co-hosts the DC-area chapter. Julie has served for decades as a synagogue board member, staff member and active congregant in North Carolina, Florida and Chicago.
The post Julie Moos Named as the Forward’s New Editor-in-Chief & Chief Content Officer appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Republican Mike Rogers is the Senate candidate Democrats need to save their party
Many progressive Michiganders – especially in the Jewish community – will hold their nose and vote for Democratic Senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed despite his association, friendship and political partnership with antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker.
Many will hold their nose because El-Sayed has called Israel a “rogue” state, refusing to recognize the Jewish State of Israel as legitimate.
They will hold their nose and vote for El-Sayed because they are more scared of the Republicans’ hold on the Senate than a tainted Democrat.
However, as a social progressive who almost always votes Democrat, I want to push back against this logic and urge my fellow Michigan Democrats and progressives to vote for Republican candidate Mike Rogers for the sake of progressive, democratic values.
For me, the disdain that El-Sayed has shown for the Jewish community, especially in his continuing refusal to disavow his relationship with Piker, puts him in the same category as candidates who are openly racist and homophobic. Even the most loyal progressive would reject a racist, even if that meant risking a Republican Senate.
To show the Democrats that such candidates should never be nominated, we must show them that such candidates can never win. Such a candidate winning would be a disaster for the most fundamental requirements we have for any candidate of any party.
Instead, those who really want to focus on turning the Senate Democratic should slip across Michigan’s border to Ohio to knock on doors for Sherrod Brown or donate to help James Talarico in Texas. Those efforts would be a real show of Democratic and progressive solidarity – much more than a vote for El-Sayed.
Donald Trump and the Republican party would like nothing more than to see Abdul El-Sayed in the Senate – an easy target to paint all progressives, liberals and loyal Democrats with the brush of anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
The anti-Israel and antisemitic words of El-Sayed and other extremists in the party are a poison that has the potential to severely damage the party long term and make it unviable both for Jews and all those with traditional liberal values. Only a decisive win for Rogers will send a clear message to the Democrats that a return to a stance that is both pro-Israel and pro Palestinian, respecting the Jewish community, is the only way for a strong party to stand up to the Republicans in national elections to defend our progressive values.
This election is not just about the safety and future of Jews in the Democratic party. It is also about returning America to a place where we do not tolerate the harassment of people with whom we politically disagree. The harassment and intimidation of any candidate considered pro-Israel at the Michigan Democratic convention in April traumatized many Jewish participants. Michigan’s Jewish Attorney General Dana Nessel skipped the convention on Saturday out of fear for her safety.
Meanwhile, El-Sayed has said nothing to apologize for his supporters who carried out this gross infraction of the democratic process. Imagine what the National Democratic Convention will look like in less than two years if this model of behavior is not denounced now. Jews with traditional pro-Israel values will see they have no place in the Democratic party.The only way to stop this behavior is to show that it leads to Democrats losing elections.
In recent days, El-Sayed reportedly apologized for remarks he made in March after a truck loaded with explosives rammed into Temple Israel in suburban Detroit with a driver intent on shooting whomever he didn’t blow up. There were more than 100 children inside.
Jews were shocked when El-Sayed seemed to justify the near murder with the words “hurt people hurt people.” His recent non-apology apology if anyone was hurt by his words made it worse.
He doubled down on recognizing the “context” for the attempted massacre: Israel’s actions in Lebanon fighting Hezbollah – the terror group in which the Michigan terrorist’s brother was a member when he died.
In other words, according to El-Sayed, if children are blown up in Michigan, you can blame Israel.
Moreover, he continues to blame Israel for Michigan not having enough funds for its public schools and other needs, a classic antisemitic deflection. His antisemitic blood libel continued after his primary victory when he accused Israel – not just its government – of being “bloodthirsty” – in its defensive war against Hamas.
El-Sayed’s friend and campaign partner Hasan Piker has shared the same sentiment ,warning pro-Israel American Jews that if they continue to defend Israel, they will be targeted because of that stance.
I urge my fellow progressives to examine Piker’s comments insulting Poles and Poland, blaming the West for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and his disdain for Black chatterers on his show – with the vilest of expressions. How can they vote for a candidate who befriends such a man and repeatedly invites him to campaign events?
Yes, Mike Rogers is an old-fashioned conservative who has had to cede some ground to Donald Trump’s conspiratorial views of the 2020 election. But I would argue that worse for our democracy is to normalize the cesspool of disgusting swearing and demonization that Piker champions.
Progressive Democrats must never give up the fight for our causes. However, in the long run, we must right the sinking ship of the Democratic party, a party which is our only hope for winning the war for our progressive values. The path to making this necessary correction is turning our energies to making sure that Mike Rogers defeats Abdul El-Sayed. That is why Rogers, a Republican, has my vote and my voice.
The post Republican Mike Rogers is the Senate candidate Democrats need to save their party appeared first on The Forward.
