Uncategorized
Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The op-ed was typical of the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page, extolling the virtues of moderation in all things.
The difference was that the author of the piece published Wednesday, Bezalel Smotrich, has a reputation for extremism, and the political landscape he was imagining is in Israel, not America.
Experts who track the U.S.-Israel relationship say the op-ed had a clear purpose: to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be rattled by his new extremist partners in governing Israel.
Those partners include Smotrich, the Religious Zionist bloc leader and self-described “proud homophobe” whom Israeli intelligence officials have accused of planning terrorist attacks — and who was sworn in as finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government Thursday. They also include Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement for his past support of Jewish terrorists, who will oversee Israel’s police.
The presence of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their parties in Netanyahu’s governing coalition has alarmed American liberals, including some in the Biden administration. But insiders say conservatives are feeling spooked, too.
“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who just returned from a tour of Israel where he met with senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming governments. “And I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”
In his op-ed published on Tuesday, two days before the new Israeli government was sworn in, Smotrich sought to persuade Americans that the new government is not the hotbed of ultranationalist and religious extremism it has been made out to be in the American press.
“The U.S. media has vilified me and the traditionalist bloc to which I belong since our success in Israel’s November elections,” he wrote. “They say I am a right-wing extremist and that our bloc will usher in a ‘halachic state’ in which Jewish law governs. In reality, we seek to strengthen every citizen’s freedoms and the country’s democratic institutions, bringing Israel more closely in line with the liberal American model.”
The op-ed is at odds with the stated aims of the coalition agreements; whereas Smotrich says there will be no legal changes to disputed areas in the West Bank, the agreements include a pledge to annex areas at an unspecified time, and to legalize outposts deemed illegal even under Israeli law. He says changes to religious practice will not involve coercion, but the agreement allows businesses to decline service “because of a religious belief,” which a member of his party has anticipated could extend to declining service to LGBTQ people.
Netanyahu has alienated the American left with his relentless attacks on its preference for a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he perceives as dangerous and naive. (He also differs from them on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.) He has instead cultivated a base on the right through close ties with the Republican Party and among evangelicals, made possible in part because he has long espoused the values traditional conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a united robust Western stance against extremism and terrorism.
But his alliance with Smotrich and others perceived as theocratic extremists may be a bridge too far even for Netanyahu’s conservative friends, who champion democratic values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, a veteran defense official in multiple Republican administrations.
“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former presidents and the secretary of state under the late George H. W. Bush.
Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the op-ed was likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with those conservatives in mind.
“The Wall Street Journal piece was designed to appeal to traditional conservatives,” he said. “It was designed to send a message to the American public writ large that the way in which Smotrich and perhaps [Itamar] Ben Gvir have been described is based on past utterances and not necessarily their forward-looking policies.”
The immediate predicate for the op-ed, insiders say, was likely a New York Times editorial on Dec. 17 that called the incoming government “a significant threat to the future of Israel” because of the extremist positions Smotrich and other partners have embraced, including the annexation of the West Bank, restrictions on non-Orthodox and non-Jewish citizens, diminishing the independence of the courts, reforming the Law of Return that would render ineligible huge chunks of Diaspora Jewry, and anti-LGBTQ measures.
Smotrich in his op-ed casts the changes not as radical departures from democratic norms but as tweaks that would align Israel more with U.S. values. He said he would pursue a “broad free-market policy” as finance minister. He likened religious reforms to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Christian service providers to decline work from LGBTQ couples.
“For example, arranging for a minuscule number of sex-separated beaches, as we propose, scarcely limits the choices of the majority of Israelis who prefer mixed beaches,” Smotrich wrote. “It simply offers an option to others.”
In the West Bank, Smotrich said, his finance ministry would promote the building of infrastructure and employment which would benefit Israeli Jewish settlers and Palestinians alike. “This doesn’t entail changing the political or legal status of the area.”
Such salves contradict the stated aims of the new government’s coalition agreement, Anshel Pfeffer, a Netanyahu biographer and analyst for Haaretz said in a Twitter thread picking apart Smotrich’s op-ed.
“Smotrich says his policy doesn’t mean changing the political or legal status of the occupied territories while annexation actually appears in the coalition agreement and his plans certainly change the legal status of the settlements,” Pfeffer said.
Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said foreign media alarm at the composition of the incoming government was premature.
“I suspect that the vast mass of people will maintain the support that they have for Israel because it hasn’t got anything to do with the passing of one government to another and has everything to do with the principle that Israel is a pro-American democracy in a region that’s pretty important,” she said.
That said, Pletka said, the changes in policy embraced by Smotrich and his cohort could alienate Americans should they become policy.
“I think a lot of things can change if the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government becomes policy, but right now, it’s rhetoric,” she said. “What you tend to see in normal governments is that they need to make a series of compromises between rhetoric that plays to their base and governance.”
Pletka said Netanyahuu’s stated ambition to expand the 2020 Abraham Accords to peace with Saudi Arabia would likely inhibit plans by Smotrich to annex the West Bank. In the summer of 2020, the last time Netanyahu planned annexation, the United Arab Emirates, one of the four Arab Parties to the Abraham Accords, threatened to pull out unless Netanyahu pulled back — which he did.
“It’s not just the relationship with the United States,” she said. “This might alienate their new friends in the Gulf, which, at the end of the day, may actually have more serious consequences.”
Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to relay the impression that he will keep his coalition partners on a short leash.
“They’re joining me, I’m not joining them,” he said earlier this month. “I’ll have two hands firmly on the steering wheel. I won’t let anybody do anything to LGBT [people] or to deny our Arab citizens their rights or anything like that.”
Zakheim said that Netanyahu, who is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, from 1996 to 1999 and then from 2009 to 2021, has proven chops at steering rangy coalitions — but there are two key differences now.
Netanyahu wants his coalition partners to pass a law that would effectively end his trial for criminal fraud, and so they exercise unprecedented leverage over him. Additionally, Netanyahu in the past has faced the greatest pressure from haredi Orthodox parties, who are susceptible to suasion by funding their impoverished sector. That’s not true of his new ideologically driven partners.
“If you look at his past governments, he has really never been forced into real policy decisions by those to the right of him,” Zekheim said. “Now he’s got a problem because these 15 or so seats of those to his right are interested in policy, not just in money.”
Makovsky said Netanyahu appears to be leaving behind a conservatism that was sympathetic to the outlook of its American counterpart.
“His success has been that he’s a stabilizer. He’s risk-averse. He’s focused on the prosperity of the country, with high-tech success. He’s the one to be seen as the tenacious guardian against Iranian nuclear influence,” he said. “And those are things people could relate to. Now, it just seems like he’s just throwing the playbook out the window.”
—
The post Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gal Gadot’s $1 Million Genesis Prize to Be Doubled to Help Israelis With Trauma Post-Oct. 7
Actor Gal Gadot gestures during the unveiling ceremony for her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Los Angeles, California, US, March 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni
The Genesis Prize Foundation (GPF) and the Jewish Funders Network (JFN) launched on Sunday a $2 million matching grant program in honor of 2026 Genesis Prize Laureate Gal Gadot to help Israeli healing with emotional and physical trauma in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the subsequent Israel-Hamas war, and now the ongoing war with Iran.
The initiative was spearheaded by Gadot, who was announced as the recipient of this year’s $1 million Genesis Prize in November 2025. The Genesis Prize Foundation has committed $1 million to the prize award, and members of JFN and other donors are expected to contribute at least $1 million more through participation in the new matching program.
The $2 million will be given to Israeli NGOs, nonprofits, and professionals who are helping Israelis in their long-term recovery from trauma and mental health issues. Participating NGOs must first secure funding contributions from individual donors or foundations, and can then apply to have those gifts matched by The Genesis Prize Foundation.
“The program will prioritize initiatives that train and develop frontline professionals, strengthen retention, well-being, and resilience among caregivers, expand human capital in mental health and community care, and deploy innovative tools that support and scale professional services,” GPF and JFN announced. “Emphasis will be placed on sustainability and long-term impact rather than short-term interventions.”
“At a time when Israel’s caregivers are stretched beyond capacity, we must ensure that those who are helping others heal receive the support they need,” said JFN President and CEO Andres Spokoiny. “JFN is proud to steward this collaborative effort, and we call on donors and foundations to join us in meeting these critical needs.”
“In this moment, and in honoring Gal Gadot, the most urgent investment we can make is in Israel’s human infrastructure: the therapists, educators, and caregivers who sustain national resilience, helping communities heal from the trauma of Oct. 7 and the ongoing conflict with Iran and Hezbollah,” said Stan Polovets, co-founder and chairman of The Genesis Prize Foundation. “Working with Jewish Funders Network allows us to mobilize philanthropy in a thoughtful, collaborative, and lasting way.”
The annual Genesis Prize is given to individuals “for their professional excellence, significant impact in their fields, and dedication to Jewish values.” Gadot was named this year’s Genesis Prize Laureate in recognition of her strong support and advocacy for her home country of Israel amid the Israel-Hamas war.
“I am humbled to receive the Genesis Prize and to stand alongside the amazing laureates who came before me,” she said last year. “I am a proud Jew and a proud Israeli. I love my country and dedicate this award to the organizations who will help Israel heal and to those incredible people who serve on the front lines of compassion. Israel has endured unimaginable pain. Now we must begin to heal – to rebuild hearts, families, and communities.”
Uncategorized
Harvard’s Jewish Enrollment Drops to Pre-World War II Levels, New Report Shows
Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Jewish undergraduate enrollment at Harvard University has plummeted to lows not seen since the eve of World War II and the Holocaust, falling to just 7 percent, according to a new report issued by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA) that describes the statistic as an “anomaly.”
“We want to be direct about what this report does and does not claim,” HJAA said in a statement. “It does not assert that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Jewish applicants. What it finds is something more specific and, we believe, more actionable.”
The group went on to deny that declining Jewish enrollment at Harvard is alone the result of racial preferences in admissions — popularly known as “affirmative action” — which, in the name of “diversity,” affords preferential consideration to applicants whose academic achievement and standardized test scores fall outside the range of the typical elite students who schools like Harvard select for membership in the Ivy League.
In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Harvard University’s racial preferences in its admissions policy violated the Constitution for its discriminatory effect on Asian American enrollment.
HJAA found a similar trend occurring at Yale University, which infamously adopted racial preferences under the leadership of President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite growing evidence that the practice created an environment of academic maladjustment and racial division. This led to the creation of segregated programming and amenities for African Americans, as well as a summer remedial program for minority students — PROP (Pre-Orientation Program) — that was eventually rebranded in the late 1990s when its apparent subtext proved unpalatable to a new generation of students.
“Yale added 1,281 undergraduate seats in 2018. Hispanic, Asian, and Black enrollment all grew in absolute terms. Jewish enrollment fell by approximately 256 students,” the group stated. “The report tests seven structural explanations for this divergence, including geographic diversification, socioeconomic targeting, Asian enrollment growth, international expansion, and athletic recruitment, individually and in combination. None of them explains the gap.”
The first Jewish alumni association in the history of Harvard University, HJAA was formed in the fall of 2023 in response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel and the wave of antisemitism around the world that it triggered. The following month, more than 1,200 of its members signed a letter which gave notice to then-Harvard president Claudine Gay that Jewish community members would no longer walk delicately around the college administration when it comes to the issue of campus antisemitism.
The HJAA report came after Harvard last year released a major report on campus antisemitism along with an apology from new campus president Alan Garber which acknowledged that school officials failed in critical ways to address the hatred to which Jewish students were subjected following Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities.
Recent political developments have caused some Jewish students affiliated with the Ivy League to temper their criticisms of elite higher education due to concerns that it validates US President Donald Trump’s coupling addressing campus antisemitism with pursuing higher education reform preferred by political conservatives. In pursuing his policy agenda, Trump has cconfiscated billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded research grants from private universities.
Just last month, The Algemeiner covered Harvard University student Sarah Silverman’s scolding Trump during a hearing on campus antisemitism held by the US Commission on Civil Rights. Screaming the entirety of her seven-minute statement, she at one point charged that “policy described as protecting Jewish students did not make me feel protected,” adding, “In a deeply troubling way, I felt blamed. I knew I had done nothing wrong, but when decisions are made in your name without ever speaking to you but are affecting your academic community in extremely negative ways, you begin to worry that others believed you asked for these actions.”
Nonetheless, HJAA is calling on Harvard to hold itself accountable, unfettered by politics and outside commentary.
“What we are asking of Harvard is straightforward: count, audit, and report. Harvard already tracks enrollment by race, gender, income, and first-generation status,” the group said. Its president, Adrian Ashekenazy added, “This report is not an accusation. It is an invitation to build the infrastructure that makes accountability possible.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Top Iran Official Larijani Was No ‘Pragmatist,’ His Death Strikes Major Blow to Regime: Analysts
Ali Larijani, top Iranian national security official and former chairman of the parliament of Iran, attends a press conference after meeting with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in Beirut, Lebanon, Nov. 15, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani
Israel’s announcement that it had killed de facto Iranian leader Ali Larijani was cast by some Western analysts on Tuesday as a blow to any remaining chance of a ceasefire, but Israeli officials and Iran watchers pushed back sharply, arguing Larijani was not a pragmatic off-ramp figure but a central architect of the regime’s wartime strategy and internal repression.
Meir Ben-Shabbat, Israel’s former national security adviser, described Larijani’s removal as a significant escalation in the campaign against Iran’s leadership, arguing it further erodes the regime’s ability to function at the highest level.
“It is not merely a symbolic step,” he told The Algemeiner. “Larijani was considered one of the most influential figures in the Islamic regime … shaping Iran’s military and political responses. His elimination intensifies the regime’s disarray.”
The killing will severely impede the regime’s efforts to recover, Ben-Shabbat said, forcing its senior figures to lower their profile even further.
Larijani’s elimination, alongside that of other senior Basij officials, “sends a sharp and clear message to regime opponents and protesters: The opportunity to bring about change is real, perhaps even just around the corner,” Ben-Shabbat said.
Israel said it also killed Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force which is affiliated with the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The news of both killings was later confirmed by the regime in Tehran.
At the time of his death, Larijani had been overseeing multiple overlapping crises that defined Iran’s wartime posture.
The Iranian hardliner was deeply involved in shaping the country’s response to joint US-Israeli strikes, advocating for a long campaign and widening the conflict across the region, including pressure on Gulf states and maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, Larijani was grappling with fallout from a surge of domestic unrest, which was met with a sweeping crackdown in January, killing tens of thousands of anti-regime protesters.
He was also managing Iran’s nuclear file, including stalled indirect talks with Washington that had already been thrown into disarray by the fighting. He previously played a central role in shepherding the Obama-led 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers — a deal later abandoned by US President Donald Trump.
Trained in Western philosophy, Larijani had close personal ties to the US, and his daughter, Fatemeh, lived and worked there as a doctor for more than a decade. Earlier on Monday, Larijani referred to the US as the “Great Satan” when he condemned the UAE and other Islamic countries for abandoning Iran.
“You know that America is not loyal and that Israel is your enemy,” Larijani said, arguing that “the unity of the Islamic ummah, if realized with full strength, can guarantee security, progress. and independence for all Islamic countries.”
“Iran continues on the path of resistance against the ‘Great Satan’ and the ‘Little Satan,’” he added, referring to the US and Israel, respectively.
Nevertheless, much of Western media has cast Larijani in more nuanced terms, often describing him as a pragmatic conservative or potential interlocutor with the West who could have played a role in future diplomacy.
The Guardian, citing a Middle East analyst, reported that Larijani was seen as a potential channel for any future diplomacy, someone who could have been tasked with advancing ceasefire discussions or follow-up talks with Washington.
“Larijani would have been the man to get that job done,” the newspaper cited Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, as saying. She added that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on “on blocking Trump’s pathways” to ending the war.
Ron Malley, the former US special envoy for Iran, went further, describing him as “one of the smarter, maybe ‘pragmatic’ members of the leadership,” a figure some diplomats saw as capable of reengaging on nuclear talks.
BBC veteran correspondent John Simpson came under fire for casting Larijani as “clever and reasonable.”
“I’ve met Ali Larijani several times over the years. Yes, he was a top figure in a nasty regime,” Simpson wrote on X. “But he always seemed clever and reasonable – the kind of person you might want to negotiate a peace deal with.”
“Is it a good idea for Israel to take out people like him?” the journalist added.
Sima Shine, head of the Iran program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, rejected portrayals of Larijani as a pragmatic counterweight within the regime, calling such characterizations “wishful” external projections to find a moderate figure inside the regime who could “take Iran on a different course.” She pointed instead to his record during the regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters earlier this year, saying “he was very much involved in the oppression of the Iranian people in January.”
Larijani was instrumental in reinforcing the regime’s strict religious and social controls, reshaping state broadcasting into a vehicle for official propaganda and targeting any reformist voices.
“He was nominated by [former Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei to lead this operation not because he was a pragmatist, but because he could be counted on to stand fast and strong vis-à-vis the US and Israel,” she said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.
At the same time, Shine warned against assuming that removing senior figures would translate into a strategic breakthrough. “We’ve never succeeded in toppling a regime,” she said. “One cannot count on elimination as the main tool to a change of regime.”
Iran’s leadership, Shine continued, is “a system, not a person,” a structure built not only on senior officials but on institutions, coercive power, and a residual support base of “some millions that are still supporting the regime.”