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
US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Condemning Antisemitic Rhetoric by Candace Owens, Hasan Piker
Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
US Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan resolution on Wednesday that condemns “antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric and content” promoted by online streamer Hasan Piker and podcaster Candace Owens.
The resolution addresses the growing influence of online personalities around the world, as well as the global rise in antisemitism in recent years fueled partially by “online disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist rhetoric.” It calls on social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and take action against hatred.
“The rise of digital media platforms has enabled individuals with large audiences to disseminate disinformation, commentary, and political viewpoints to millions of viewers worldwide,” the resolution states. “Such influence carries a heightened responsibility to avoid rhetoric that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against any group, including Jewish individuals and communities.”
The resolution lists several hateful comments from both Piker and Owens.
Piker has repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and even said “it doesn’t matter” if sexual assault took place during the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Owens is notorious for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, tropes, and blood libels about Judaism, Jewish figures, and Israel. She has claimed, for example, that Israel controls the US government and has also downplayed and denied verified details about the Holocaust.
The resolution states that efforts to “downplay or excuse antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of political commentary should be rejected.”
“Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on Oct. 7, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers. With an audience of millions, they have a responsibility to confront hatred and bigotry in every form, not to amplify it to the masses. So, if they won’t call it out, I will.”
“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer added. “It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the far right or the far left. We cannot be selective in calling out antisemitism. When influential voices spread conspiracy theories, promote terrorism, or dehumanize Jewish people, it fuels real-world violence and intimidation. We must stand up and speak out.”
“I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path,” he noted. “That’s what principled leadership is all about.”
Owens has not publicly commented on the resolution, but Piker condemned it in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).
“They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”
Uncategorized
Peru’s President Under Fire Over Antisemitic Remarks Blaming Jews for ‘Pushing’ Germany Into World War II
José María Balcázar was elected as acting president of Peru on Feb. 18, 2026, and will serve until July 28, when the winner of the presidential elections takes office. Photo: ULAN/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect
Peru’s interim president, José María Balcázar, has sparked global outrage after claiming that Jews helped “push” Germany into World War II, drawing mounting calls from world leaders and advocacy groups to retract his remarks and issue a formal apology over what critics condemn as deeply antisemitic.
During a speech marking the 138th anniversary of the Chamber of Commerce of Lima, the Peruvian leader — who assumed power after Congress appointed him to replace ousted former president José Jerí amid corruption allegations — cited The Enemies of Commerce by Antonio Escohotado, invoking its arguments while amplifying long-discredited antisemitic tropes.
“It is a monument to the history of commerce: how bills of exchange were born, how international trade moved, what role Jews played in Germany’s national and international trade, how Germany was pushed into World War II, also partly because of the Jews, because they controlled all the banks, all the commerce, and practiced usury,” Balcázar said.
“All these historical details need to be remembered through Escohotado, so that we can better prepare ourselves and understand the history and hardships of those dedicated to commerce. It is truly interesting,” the left-leaning lawmaker and former judge continued.
Shortly after Balcázar’s remarks gained widespread media attention, leaders of Peru’s Jewish community, opposition figures, and officials from Israel and Germany, as well as other foreign diplomats, swiftly condemned his statements, demanding that he retract them and issue an unequivocal public apology.
In a joint statement, the embassies of Israel and Germany in Peru condemned Balcázar’s claims as “absurd, historically untenable, and a violation of the memory of millions of German Jewish citizens murdered by the Nazis.”
“It should be remembered that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime initiated World War II with the invasion of Poland in 1939. Nazi ideology, rooted in racism and antisemitism, not only discriminated against Jewish citizens but also led to the murder of six million Jews in concentration camps,” the statement read.
“The Holocaust must never be trivialized under any circumstances,” it continued.
Israel claramente rechaza en conjunto con Alemania, toda forma de Antisemitismo.@Agencia_Andina @PresidenciaPE @CancilleriaPeru pic.twitter.com/gnzZ3d1PTt
— Israel En Peru (@IsraelinPeru) April 29, 2026
The Jewish Association of Peru (AJP) also denounced the remarks, describing them as a dangerous revival of “outdated antisemitic theories,” and warning against the spread of such narratives.
“It is shocking that, in the 21st century, arguments reminiscent of the darkest medieval eras are still being used to blame victims of the Holocaust for their own persecution,” AJP said in a statement.
Amid growing domestic and international pressure, the government issued a statement expressing regret that the comments had “created a mistaken perception regarding the Jewish people in the context of the outbreak of World War II.”
“The Peruvian state has consistently maintained that Nazi fanaticism was the driving force behind the war and the perpetrator of the unforgivable genocide against the Jewish people. This longstanding position, which also led Peru to firmly support the creation of Israel, remains unchanged,” the statement read.
“President José María Balcázar strongly condemns the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people during World War II, reaffirms his rejection of antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and expresses his solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust,” it continued.
Balcázar will serve as interim president until July 28, when the winner of this year’s presidential election takes office.
Uncategorized
Lebanon’s Internal Splits Over Talks With Israel Trip Up Saudi Mediation Efforts
An Israeli military vehicle drives past destroyed buildings in Lebanon, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Shir Torem
A growing rift between top Lebanese officials has thrown a wrench into Saudi efforts to help Lebanon’s leaders forge a united position over historic negotiations with Israel, Lebanese sources and foreign officials told Reuters on Thursday.
Saudi Arabia, which sponsored the 1990 agreement that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, has deepened its engagement in recent days with Lebanon, where a shaky US-brokered ceasefire has failed to fully halt the nearly two-month war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Ties between Riyadh and Beirut had been strained for years due to Hezbollah’s power over Lebanese politics and security, but the Sunni kingdom sees an opening after the group was severely weakened by war with Israel in 2024.
The US intended for the April 16 truce between Israel and Lebanon to allow for direct talks on a peace deal, potentially shaking up Lebanon’s internal dynamics and its role in the region. But Lebanese leaders remain at odds over the negotiation format and ultimate goal.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has defended face-to-face talks with Israel in Washington, and has said the ceasefire should be transformed into “permanent agreements.” Although he has stopped short of explicitly calling for a peace deal, two sources familiar with Aoun’s position told Reuters he had privately expressed his readiness to normalize ties with Israel to stop the war.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, is opposed to direct talks, reflecting the Shi’ite terrorist group‘s position. Berri believes Lebanon should seek a non-aggression pact with Israel but not a full peace deal, two Lebanese sources familiar with his position told Reuters.
PLANS DERAILED
Last week, Saudi envoy to Lebanon Prince Yazid bin Farhan visited Beirut to encourage Aoun, Berri, and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to set out a single position on the talks and to signal their unity through a tripartite meeting, according to two senior Lebanese political sources who met with bin Farhan and a Western official briefed on the talks.
But plans to hold such a meeting this week were derailed by rising tensions, all three sources said, after Berri publicly accused Aoun of making statements about negotiations that were “inaccurate, to say the least.”
There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Aoun’s office or from the Saudi government media office. Aoun met Salam on Thursday, the presidency said in a statement, without mentioning Berri.
The splits between Aoun and Berri, who hold their positions according to a power-sharing system that divides Lebanon’s top posts by religion, reflect broader divisions within Lebanese society over the negotiations with Israel.
Some Lebanese see direct talks and a swift peace deal as the only way to end a long history of Israeli invasions into Lebanon.
But Hezbollah and much of its broader Shi’ite Muslim constituency, who have borne the brunt of Israel‘s attacks, are firmly opposed to face-to-face talks and to normalizing ties. Some people protesting against talks earlier this month called for the government to be toppled.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention with Lebanese leaders was driven by the risk of such instability – as well as its concern that Lebanon was moving towards peace with Israel too swiftly, according to a Gulf source with knowledge of the matter, the two senior Lebanese political sources and the Western official.
Bin Farhan sought and received reassurances that Hezbollah would not seek to topple the Lebanese government, and cautioned Lebanese leaders last week that Beirut’s progress towards peace with Israel should not outpace Saudi Arabia’s, the four sources said.
Riyadh’s longstanding position has been that it will only sign up to the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel if there is agreement on a roadmap to Palestinian statehood.
SAUDI KEEN FOR ‘DETENTE’ BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL
US President Donald Trump, keen to expand the accords, said this month he would invite Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks.
Bin Farhan advised Lebanese authorities against Aoun meeting Netanyahu soon, the two senior Lebanese political sources said.
However, Saudi Arabia does want Lebanon to work towards a “detente” with Israel that would halt instability, the Gulf source and one of the Lebanese sources said.
Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,500 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1.2 million since the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2, according to Lebanese authorities. Israel says the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists, who started the conflict by firing drones and rockets at the Jewish state.
The April 16 truce, which facilitated separate negotiations over the Iran war, stopped strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs but not on other parts of Lebanon.