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
80 Years After the Holocaust, Did Antisemitism Disappear? Or Did Anti-Zionism Replace It?
A German and Israeli flag fly, on the day Chancellor Friedrich Merz meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog for talks, in Berlin, Germany, May 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Liesa Johannssen
There is a comforting narrative circulating in Western discourse. It insists that the surge of anti-Israel activism we see today is nothing more than political engagement. We are told it is about policy disagreements, about borders, about governments and human rights. We are assured it has nothing to do with Jews as Jews.
Yet over and over again, the façade cracks. Beneath the slogans and hashtags, something much older surfaces. What presents itself as principled opposition to a state too often reveals itself as hostility toward a people.
For centuries, Jews have been blamed for calamities that had nothing to do with them. During the Black Death in medieval Europe, Jewish communities were accused of poisoning wells and spreading plague. These lies triggered massacres. In times of disease and social instability, fear sought an outlet and found it in the Jewish minority.
The pattern did not end there. Blood libels claimed that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals. Jews were portrayed as shadowy financiers manipulating global markets, engineering wars, and controlling governments. These were not fringe ideas whispered in dark corners. They were preached from pulpits, embedded in political rhetoric, and woven into cultural narratives.
The consequences were catastrophic. The expulsions from European kingdoms. The pogroms that swept across Eastern Europe and parts of the Middle East all the way up until the 1900s. The 1929 massacre in Hebron, where Jews were slaughtered in their homes. And ultimately the Holocaust, orchestrated by the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler, in which six million Jews were systematically murdered. Each era insisted it was responding to some new threat. Each era recycled ancient accusations.
Many antisemites now claim they only oppose Israel — but are we really supposed to believe that 80 years after 1/3 of every Jew on Earth was murdered, that antisemitism has disappeared and this is all about Israel?
Modern terrorism continued the pattern. At the 1972 Munich Olympics, members of the Israeli team were murdered in cold blood. In 1985, during the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, a Jewish passenger was singled out and killed. In 1976, Jewish hostages were separated from others in Entebbe before a dramatic rescue operation. And on October 7, 2023, Israeli civilians were massacred in their homes, children were abducted, and elderly people were dragged into Gaza by Hamas. Once again, Jews were targeted not for what they had done as individuals, but for who they were.
Each time, the world proclaims never again. Each time, hatred finds new language.
That’s why most “anti-Zionism” is just antisemitic logic repackaged for the digital age.
The intellectual dishonesty extends further. Marginal sects such as Neturei Karta are frequently showcased as the authentic voice of Judaism because they oppose the State of Israel. This tiny, fringe group does not represent mainstream Jewish communities in Israel or the Diaspora. Yet their images are amplified to suggest that “real Jews” reject Jewish self determination. It is not an honest engagement with Jewish diversity. It is a strategy to legitimize hostility.
In online spaces, the pattern is unmistakable. Comment sections filled with recycled tropes about Jewish control of media, finance, and politics are everywhere. Every geopolitical development is reframed as evidence of a hidden Jewish hand. Emotional accusations drown out factual context. In the age of algorithms, outrage spreads faster than correction. A sensational claim travels further than a careful explanation.
None of this means that Israel is beyond criticism. But there is a difference between criticism and much of what is happening now.
The State of Israel was established after centuries in which Jews lacked sovereignty and paid for that vulnerability with blood. It emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, when the absence of refuge proved fatal. To reduce its existence to colonial ambition is to erase Jewish history and the lived reality of exile, persecution, and statelessness.
Antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism is not diminishing. It is intensifying across university campuses, in activist movements, and in mainstream conversation. The vocabulary may sound modern, but the underlying message echoes the past. Jews are uniquely malevolent. Jews are collectively responsible. Jews are the problem.
The antidote is not censorship but clarity. Historical literacy matters. Facts matter. Calling out antisemitic tropes when they appear, even when wrapped in fashionable language, is not an attempt to silence dissent. It is a defense of truth and moral consistency.
The lesson of history is neither abstract nor distant. When antisemitism is trivialized or excused, it spreads. When it is confronted with moral seriousness and factual rigor, it loses legitimacy. If we are sincere in our commitment to a world where Jews are not scapegoats for every crisis, then we must recognize that anti-Zionism too often serves as the latest vessel for the oldest hatred.
The responsibility to say so belongs to all of us.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
Uncategorized
Israel, AIPAC Take Center Stage in Competitive US Congressional Primary
Aug. 12, 2025, Chicago, Illinois, US: Daniel Biss, mayor of Evanston, Illinois, attends a rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago after the announcement that the Trump administration has unilaterally ended the collective bargaining agreement with federal unions. Photo: Chicago Tribune via ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Leading candidates in a hotly contested open-seat Democratic primary for US Congress are dueling over support for Israel and the country’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, which have become key focal points of the race.
Tensions have been simmering for months but escalated after a super PAC known as Elect Chicago Women — which is reportedly supported by donors tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — began airing its first attack ad in Illinois’ 9th Congressional District last weekend. The ad accused progressive Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss of being “willing to say anything to get elected.”
Elect Chicago Women has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on broadcast television attacking Biss and more than $2 million boosting moderate state Sen. Laura Fine, according to federal filings.
The political action committee has not publicly disclosed its donors ahead of the primary, fueling complaints from Biss and other candidates about covert influence in the contest.
In a statement on Sunday, the Biss campaign stated that voters “won’t be fooled by these slimy dark money ads, and they won’t allow right-wing special interests to pick our next member of Congress.”
The next day, Biss released an attack ad targeting Fine for receiving money from supporters of AIPAC, which Biss’s campaign described as a “Trump-aligned, pro-Netanyahu” group, referring to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ad also said that AIPAC was aligned with “MAGA,” or Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.
AIPAC is a prominent lobbying group that seeks to foster bipartisan support for the US-Israel alliance. Despite making bipartisanship a key tenet of its work, AIPAC has in recent years become a favorite target of left-wing, Democratic activists and politicians.
Before the latest dueling ads, the clash in Illinois’ 9th District spilled into a candidate forum hosted by the Pink Poster Club last week in Evanston, where contenders were asked directly whether they accept contributions from AIPAC or longtime AIPAC supporters.
Fine was the only candidate on stage to say yes. She clarified that she has not received money directly from AIPAC itself but has accepted donations from individuals who support the group, as well as from some Republican donors. AIPAC has not formally endorsed any candidates in the race.
Nonetheless, Biss seized on Fine’s distinction, arguing that Democratic voters should question why right-leaning and pro-Israel special-interest donors are investing heavily in a Democratic primary. He has framed the super PAC spending as an attempt by outside forces to purchase the seat and shape the district’s representation on foreign policy.
Fine was also the sole candidate last week to respond “yes” to supporting continued military assistance for Israel.
Other rivals echoed concerns about transparency and influence, but it was Biss who most forcefully made policy toward Israel and AIPAC-aligned spending a centerpiece of his critique.
Fine has pushed back, saying the attacks mischaracterize both her record and her motivations. She points to her legislative work in Springfield on issues such as abortion rights, health-care access, and environmental protection, arguing that her support is grounded in her progressive credentials.
She has also emphasized her longstanding ties to the local Jewish community, a significant constituency in the district, and said backing from pro-Israel donors reflects shared values, not outside control. Supporters argue that strong US–Israel relations are a mainstream Democratic position and that accepting donations from pro-Israel individuals does not conflict with progressive priorities.
Fine and her campaign have denied any coordination with outside groups and contend that Biss is unfairly singling out Jewish and pro-Israel donors for political gain. Moreover, Fine has taken aim at Biss for his supposed connections with conservative donors.
“Daniel Biss has relied on Republican donors for years and voters are sick of politicians who say whatever it takes to win an election,” Fine’s campaign said in a statement.
At last week’s forum, Fine said she was “sick and tired of being Dan-splained,” noting that Biss met with AIPAC officials multiple times before rebuking their involvement in the race.
“When they said, ‘We don’t trust you,’ he changed his tune again. And that’s not a surprise, because he’ll tell one group one thing and another group another,” Fine said.
Another candidate in the race, Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old Palestinian-American social media personality who has repeatedly accused Israel of so-called “genocide” in Gaza, also slammed Biss for previously meeting with AIPAC officials.
Biss currently leads the primary with 24 percent support among voters, according to a new poll commissioned by the Evanston RoundTable and conducted by Public Policy Polling, a firm affiliated with the Democratic Party. He was followed by Abughazaleh at 17 percent and Fine at 16 percent, with nearly a quarter of voters still undecided.
In the open competition to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Fine has sought to establish herself as the most Israel-friendly candidate, stressing the importance of Israel’s self-defense and the importance of continuing the American alliance with the Jewish state.
Biss, who is Jewish, has taken a harsher stance against Israel, issuing sharpened criticisms of the Jewish state’s conduct in Gaza. Though Biss has stated that he supports Israel and has expressed desire for continuing the alliance between Washington and Jerusalem, he has condemned the Netanyahu government and called for increased restrictions on US military aid. However, the mayor also spent large stretches of his childhood in Israel and has expressed a generally positive sentiment toward the nation and its people.
Nonetheless, Biss has promised not to accept any funding or support from AIPAC, accusing the prominent lobbying group of having “MAGA-aligned donors” and arguing that accepting its support would force him to “compromise” his progressive values.
Last month, US Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, penned a letter demanding answers from Biss, accusing him of failing to protect Jewish students during a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel encampment at Northwestern University that, lawmakers say, devolved into widespread antisemitic harassment and violence. Northwestern’s campus is located in Evanston.
Illinois’ 9th District, long represented by progressive stalwarts, is heavily Democratic and includes Evanston and Chicago’s North Side. In such a deep-blue seat, the winner of the March primary will be the overwhelming favorite to win the general election.
Uncategorized
IDF Base Sports Center Destroyed in Oct. 7 Attack Reopens as Part of Multi-Million Dollar Rebuilding Project
Inside the reconstructed sports complex at the Israel Defense Forces’ Re’im Base during its reopening ceremony on Feb. 24, 2026. Photo: FIDF
A sports center and gym at the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) base in Re’im, Israel, reopened on Tuesday after being infiltrated on Oct. 7, 2023, by Hamas-led terrorists, who used the facility to plan further attacks against Israelis before it was ultimately destroyed.
The sports center at the IDF base in Re’im, which serves as the military’s Gaza Division headquarters, was reconstructed and reopened as part of a NIS 23 million ($7.44 million) project to restore facilities destroyed during the deadly massacre across southern Israel. The facility was rebuilt from the ground up and now includes a state-of-the-art fitness gym and indoor basketball arena. A mezuzah was placed on the doorpost of the center during its reopening ceremony on Tuesday and a commemorative plaque was unveiled.
A project to make the base fully operational again was led by Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF) and the Association for Israel’s Soldiers (AFIS). The sports center’s original construction was funded by donors from FIDF’s New York Tristate Area Real Estate Affinity Group, who united after the Oct. 7 attack to launch its rebuilding. Marty Berger, co-chair of the group, spoke at the center’s reopening on Tuesday.
“I remember when we first built this gym and facility and coming back over the years to see how much they meant to you,” he told IDF solders and FIDF supporters in attendance. “When we returned in December 2023, just two months after Oct. 7, we saw the damage and the bullet holes throughout the gym and fitness center. It was heartbreaking, but we also saw how the Gaza Division re-emerged ready to defend Israel with strength and determination and we vowed to rebuild it. To see this place rebuilt and to have played a small part in restoring it is deeply humbling.”
Hamas-led terrorists infiltrated the IDF base on Oct. 7, 2023, and used the sports center as their own center for operations, where they planned further attacks on IDF soldiers and their families on base. When IDF special forces closed in and tried to regain control of the base, the terrorists used the gym as the site for their final stand-off. The IDF ultimately ordered an airstrike against the terrorists, which completely destroyed the building. Many of the military base’s structures were also damaged in the Oct. 7 attack and considered unusable.
“Rehabilitating [the] Re’im base is a true mission, stemming from the inseparable bond between the Jewish community in the United States and IDF soldiers,” said FIDF CEO Maj. Gen. (Res.) Nadav Padan. “The reconstruction of the sports center and other welfare facilities symbolizes the determination to restore routine, stability, and a place that enables soldiers to continue their mission with a sense of security and pride. We stand alongside the soldiers of the Gaza Division today and in the future, with full and ongoing commitment.”
“The completion of this rehabilitation project is not only the rebuilding of structures but also symbolizes the end of a complex period and the beginning of a new path for the soldiers and commanders at Re’im base,” added AFIS CEO Col. (Res.) Shari Nechmias-Carmel. “It is an expression of life, spirit, and hope returning to the base, and of our commitment to providing those who serve there with a dignified environment that is strengthening and secure.”
The NIS 23 million reconstruction project also includes the restoration of the military base’s synagogue, library, health clinic, and other structures damaged during the Oct. 7 attack.