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
Art theft, angels and neo-Nazis force a reckoning with the past in ‘The Tavern at the End of History’
Tavern At The End of History
Morris Collins
Dzanc Books, 326pp, $27.95
In Morris Collins’ novel about two directionless adults on the hunt for a famous work of art presumed to have been stolen during the Holocaust, one character theorizes that “the only way towards a moral life” is to let go of the past. But Tavern At the End of History a follow up to Collins’ debut novel — the post-colonial thriller Horse Latitudes — is all about remembering, even that which is painful, and reckoning with it.
When readers are first introduced to Jacob, his inappropriate remarks to a student have cost him his professorship and his marriage, and he’s become an alcoholic. At a park in Brooklyn, he meets Baer, an impoverished Orthodox man living in a ramshackle apartment with only a fat orange cat to keep him company. As it turns out, they are both connected to the disgraced Kabbalah scholar Alex Baruch.
After meeting Baruch at a conference in Berlin, Jacob became a devoted follower. Even after Baruch was exposed for lying about being a German Holocaust survivor, Jacob remained loyal and has agreed to meet with Baruch at his sanitarium in Maine the same weekend Baruch plans to auction off a sketch by the deceased Jewish artist Alexander Lurio.
Baer reveals that the sketch had belonged to his family before the war, but, he says, it was confiscated by the Nazis. Jacob agrees go to Maine and look for the sketch with Baer’s cousin Rachel, an art historian still reeling from her husband’s suicide after she helped him leave the Orthodox community. But art isn’t the only interesting thing on Baruch’s private island. There are neo-Nazis, an erotic statue garden, otherworldly entities, and an eccentric group of Jews, although it’s unclear if they are fellow visitors of the sanitarium or patients.
Jacob, Rachel, and the other Jews at the sanitarium are incessantly haunted by the past — for Baruch, this becomes literal, when a friend he presumed had died in the Holocaust appears at his doorstep. The oddball group spends their five days in Maine, primarily telling stories about their trauma, all linked to the Holocaust either through their own experiences or those of their parents. It may be doubtful that there is any sense to be derived from tragedy, but they try their very best.
For Baruch, this means trying to justify lying about his past and doing unspeakable things to make his life easier. Jacob funnels his confusion into philosophical debates about how — or even if — the Holocaust and Israel should be understood in relation to one another. Rachel seems to believe misfortune can be rectified as she hunts for the stolen Lurio sketch.
The book often veers into unsettling territory, sometimes painting overwhelmingly disturbing scenes from the Holocaust, but Collins’ illustrative writing keeps the story engaging, even in its bleakest moments. His world-building is so convincing it’s almost incomprehensible that the Lurio works are fictionalized. Even the enigmatic Alex Baruch and the fake writings Collins “quotes” from feel real.
Because the book takes place in 2017, some of its musings on Israel and antisemitism feel less jarring than they could be. The characters watch the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally on the television, scenes that could now easily be substituted with more alarming images of government officials cozying up to neo-Nazis. The discussions about the Holocaust and Zionism feel less edgy than they may have almost a decade ago, as so much new scholarship questioning the role of memory and trauma in the creation of Israel has come out.
The book ends with some ambiguity about what exactly transpires on the island and how our characters will be able to move on. Still, Collins crafts a compelling art mystery, buttressed by a tale of a group of lost souls trying to find meaning in a world that sometimes feels hopeless.
The post Art theft, angels and neo-Nazis force a reckoning with the past in ‘The Tavern at the End of History’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu returns to Washington — this time to shape a deal with Iran, not fight one
When President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House today – their 6th meeting in the U.S. in the last year – their discussion will focus on a shared commitment to confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, but the stakes are different for each of them.
For Trump, a nuclear agreement could cement his legacy as a peacemaker, perhaps even earn him a long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize. For Netanyahu, a deal could bolster his political standing back home in a difficult election year.
In 2015, when President Obama was on the verge of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, Netanyahu cast himself as the indispensable interpreter of the Iranian threat to Washington, as he has again. But back then, Netanyahu came to publicly oppose what he called “a very bad” Iran deal, pushing back against the U.S. president. Now, he is visiting the White House with the hope of shaping U.S. policy on Iran, not challenging the president.
Trump has described the first round of discussions with Iran as “very good,” even as U.S. aircraft carriers and other military assets build up in the region. He has insisted that Tehran is “wanting to make a deal very badly.” Israel, for its part, has made clear that any agreement must go beyond limits on uranium enrichment and also address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its network of regional proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis – that have been attacking Israel.
Netanyahu has said he plans to present the president with Israel’s approach to the nuclear talks led by Trump’s close advisers, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff.
Netanyahu is betting that intimacy equals influence. That being the leader who shows up in person — again and again — ensures Israel is not outflanked as decisions are made. Last June, that strategy appeared to pay off. Netanyahu launched a charm offensive aimed at drawing Trump into a more active role in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. If talks fail, Trump could act again. “Either we will make a deal, or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” Trump told Axios.
But the frequency of these meetings also reflects some vulnerability. It showcases a prime minister who cannot afford distance and disagreement with the White House.
The domestic clock is ticking
The longest-serving Israeli leader is facing a real risk that Israel’s legislature, the Knesset, will dissolve in the coming weeks if his coalition fails to resolve the explosive issue of military conscription for Haredi yeshiva students. The Haredi parties have threatened to vote against the budget ahead of the March 31 deadline — a move that would trigger elections as early as June.
If Netanyahu emerges from the White House visit with rhetorical alignment or symbolic support, he could buy himself time and political oxygen.
These gestures matter for Israel, where the education minister, Yoav Kisch, has formally invited Trump to attend the Israel Prize ceremony on Independence Day in Jerusalem to receive the prestigious award for a “Unique Contribution to the Jewish People.” Israeli officials have also invited him to participate in the annual torch-lighting ceremony, one of the most emotionally charged moments on the Israeli civic calendar.
If Trump accepts the invitation and travels to Israel again, it would be a political gift of the highest order. For Netanyahu’s supporters, that imagery could energize turnout and blunt opposition momentum. For undecided voters, it reinforces a familiar argument: Whatever Netanyahu’s flaws at home, replacing him would risk destabilizing Israel’s most important relationship abroad and its closest ally in any confrontation with Iran.
But Trump’s current position on Iran may still cross Netanyahu’s red lines. And Trump has shown before that he is willing to act unilaterally, even without backing from allies.
Still, he is very popular in Israel, and that benefits Netanyahu. A new survey by the Jewish People Policy Institute showed that 73% of Israelis rate Trump as a better-than-average U.S. president for Israel’s interests and 54% of Jews in Israel view Trump as one of the best presidents in U.S. history.
The post Netanyahu returns to Washington — this time to shape a deal with Iran, not fight one appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
5 things to know ahead of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are set to meet at the White House Wednesday in a highly anticipated discussion. The primary focus of the meeting is expected to be the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, particularly regarding Tehran’s treatment of protesters and the possibility of a renewed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.
But it also comes amid intensifying debates over U.S. military assistance to Israel, eroding bipartisan support for that aid, and recent controversial Israeli moves in the West Bank, all of which could shape the conversation.
How US military aid to Israel works
U.S. military aid to Israel has long been governed by a 2016 memorandum of understanding under which Washington pledged $38 billion in assistance over a decade — $33 billion in military grants and $5 billion for joint missile defense programs. Israel receives roughly $3.8 billion annually, including approximately $500 million earmarked for missile defense. The agreement is scheduled to be renegotiated in 2028.
Since the outbreak of the Gaza war on Oct. 7, 2023, Congress has authorized at least $16.3 billion in additional aid. The flow of funds is subject to congressional review and measures such as the Leahy Law, which bars assistance to foreign security forces implicated in gross human rights violations.
US aid to Israel no longer enjoys the bipartisan support it once did
Amid the Gaza war and the rise of a U.S. anti-war, pro-Palestinian movement, American public support for Israel has declined significantly across both major parties.
A 2025 Pew Research Center study found that only 24% of Americans under 30 view the Israeli government favorably, compared with roughly half of those over 60. Among Republicans, negative views of Israel increased from 27% in 2022 to 37%, while among Democrats the rise was steeper — from 53% to 69%. Nearly 4 in 10 adults under 30 believe the U.S. provides “too much” aid to Israel, compared with one-third of adults overall.
The debate over U.S. aid to Israel played a significant role in last week’s Democratic congressional primary in New Jersey. A super PAC associated with the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC spent more than $2 million on negative ads that helped fuel the defeat of former Rep. Tom Malinowski, who describes himself as pro-Israel but who drew AIPAC’s fire because he is opposed to unconditional aid.
Why Netanyahu wants to reduce U.S. military aid
In recent weeks, Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have publicly expressed a desire to reduce Israel’s dependence on U.S. military assistance. Netanyahu has said he hopes to “taper off” U.S. aid over the next decade and has indicated that he does not intend to seek a full renewal of the 2016 agreement.
This push is rooted in frustrations during the Gaza war, when several allies, including the Biden administration, temporarily halted or delayed certain arms transfers over concerns that specific munitions could be used in ways that might cause excessive harm to Palestinian civilians. Israeli officials argue that these restrictions constrained Israel’s ability to fight at critical moments.
Israeli leaders also see strategic and economic value in redirecting the billions of dollars currently spent on U.S. weapons toward Israel’s own defense industry. At the same time, declining support for U.S. aid to Israel among both “America First” Republicans and Democrats concerned about Gaza casualties has made the Israeli government increasingly wary of relying on Washington for its long-term defense needs.
On Jan. 28, Netanyahu claimed that what he called an arms “embargo” under former President Joe Biden cost Israeli soldiers their lives — a statement former U.S. officials quickly condemned.
“Netanyahu is both not telling the truth and ungrateful to a president that literally saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment,” said Amos Hochstein, a former U.S. diplomat under Biden. Brett McGurk, who served in senior national security roles under presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump, as well as Biden, said the claim was “categorically false.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides added: “He is wrong. Biden’s support for Israel has been rock solid, and he provided it at enormous political cost.”
For its part, the Trump administration published its 2026 National Defense Strategy at the end of January, which states, “Israel is a model ally, and we have an opportunity now to further empower it to defend itself and promote our shared interests.”
The meeting’s focus: Iran
Discussions regarding Iran are expected to dominate the meeting. Iran and Israel have long been adversaries, with Tehran openly committed to Israel’s destruction. The meeting comes ahead of months of increased tension between the two nations. During the 12-Day War in June 2025, Israel struck key Iranian military assets, and the U.S., buoyed by prior Israeli military successes, attacked major Iranian nuclear facilities. The present condition of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs after the strikes is unclear, and Israel remains determined to eliminate the security threat posed by Iran.
Following the outbreak of anti-regime protests in Iran in mid-January, Trump encouraged demonstrators in a Jan. 13 Truth Social post, writing: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Shortly after the post, Netanyahu reportedly urged Trump not to strike Iran, citing fears of a major Iranian retaliation against Israel — an outcome Iranian officials have explicitly threatened. While Trump has repeatedly warned Iran of potential military action over Iran’s treatment of protesters, and moved a fleet of aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East, he has emphasized his preference for reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran, particularly focused on the country’s nuclear program.
The Trump administration met with Iranian officials in Oman over the weekend in the hopes that a deal might be struck. With talks expected to continue next week, Netanyahu is now seeking to broaden the scope of any potential agreement between the U.S. and Iran. According to a statement from his office, Netanyahu hopes the Trump administration will push for provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program and Iran’s support for regional militant groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, as well as ensuring Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
On the sidelines, Israel makes controversial moves in the West Bank
Recent Israeli decisions regarding the West Bank may also surface during the meeting, following announcements on Sunday by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz of new measures expanding Israeli control over territory in the West Bank presently controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The steps will make it easier for Jewish Israelis to purchase land in the West Bank and could allow Israeli police to demolish homes in areas under PA jurisdiction — moves that would violate the Oslo Accords.
The recent Israeli decisions run counter to explicit Trump administration requests that Israel avoid controversial actions in the West Bank, particularly as Arab states have warned that steps toward annexation could jeopardize their willingness to help manage postwar Gaza or normalize relations with Israel.
Trump told Axios on Tuesday, “We have enough things to think about now. We don’t need to be dealing with the West Bank.” U.S. officials also reiterated Trump’s opposition to Israeli annexation of the territory, stating, “A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region.”
With a potential deal with Iran on the table, U.S. military aid to Israel under growing scrutiny, and Israeli actions in the West Bank complicating regional diplomacy, Wednesday’s meeting comes at a unique moment for the U.S.-Israel relationship. But as past meetings between Trump and Netanyahu have shown, there is a very real chance the meeting could veer off script.
The post 5 things to know ahead of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting appeared first on The Forward.