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
Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel
(JTA) — The former executive director of Human Rights Watch is defending the group after two staffers quit over allegations that a report accusing Israel of a “crime against humanity” was blocked from publication.
Omar Shakir, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Israel-Palestine team, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari tendered their resignations after they said the organization refused to publish a report concluding that Israel’s denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees amounted to a “crime against humanity.”
“I’ve resigned from @hrw after 10+ yrs—most as Israel/Palestine Director—after HRW’s new ED pulled a finalized report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees on eve of its release & blocked for weeks its publication in a principled way,” Shakir tweeted earlier in the week.
He linked to an article about the resignations in Jewish Currents. Shakir, who formerly worked as a legal fellow for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long engaged in pro-Palestinian legal advocacy, is on Jewish Currents’ advisory board.
In a resignation letter obtained by Jewish Currents, Shakir wrote, “I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law.”
Multiple former Human Rights Watch staffers panned Shakir and his critique, including Ken Roth, the group’s former executive director and himself a vociferous critic of Israel. Roth’s replacement, Philippe Bolopion, was named in November.
“The new @HRW director was right to suspend a report using a novel & unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity,” tweeted Roth, whose father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. “It had been rushed through the review process during a leadership transition.”
Danielle Haas, who served as the senior editor at Human Rights Watch from 2009 to 2023, criticized Shakir sharply in a post on X.
“‘Nourish a wolf,’ Aesop said, ‘and it will eat you.’ For years, @hrw tolerated, placated, excused, and incubated @OmarSShakir as BDSer-turned-Israel/Palestine director. Now it’s their turn to get the ideological mob treatment,” wrote Haas. “His old tricks used v. others, now turned v. them: petitions, division, politics. Appeasement always bites you in the end.”
Shakir served as the lead researcher and author of a 2021 Human Rights Watch report that argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians had crossed the threshold into apartheid. The report was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time. In 2019, he was deported from Israel in accordance with a law that banned entry to foreigners who publicly call for boycotting the Jewish state or its settlements.
NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group, wrote in a post on X that the internal dispute at Human Rights Watch served as “a reminder of what happens when an NGO promotes the most extreme activists to positions of influence.”
The episode is casting light on the issue of Palestinian refugees, who many pro-Palestinian advocates believe should be able to return to the homes and communities their families left in 1948. Such a right is widely seen as both out of step with international precedent and a tactic to undo a Jewish majority in Israel.
While Human Rights Watch has long supported a right of return for Palestinian refugees, Shakir told Jewish Currents that the group is more hesitant when applying that principle in practice.
“The one topic,” he said, “even at Human Rights Watch, for which there remains an unwillingness to apply the law and the facts in a principled way is the plight of refugees and their right to return to the homes that they were forced to flee.”
In a statement shared with Jewish Currents and the New York Times, Human Rights Watch stated that the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and its publication was “paused pending further analysis and research.”
“In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards,” the group said.
The post Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit
(JTA) — Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit to Australia this weekend, which was scheduled in the wake of the Bondi massacre in December, has drawn widespread opposition and planned protests, including from some Jews.
Following Herzog’s invitation to visit the country by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, some Labor party members and pro-Palestinian groups called for the invitation to be rescinded.
Those calls have reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with Australian human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti calling on Albanese to rescind the invitation or arrest Herzog on arrival for inciting “genocide.”
Australia’s minister of foreign affairs, Penny Wong, defended the visit in an interview with ABC radio, telling the station that it was the wishes of the Jewish community following the December terror attack on a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney that killed 15.
“We have the Australian Jewish community who have been targeted in an overtly antisemitic terrorist attack. We have had 15 Australians die, we have families mourning, and this was a request from the Jewish community for President Herzog to visit,” said Wong, herself a staunch a critic of Israel.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald published Friday, Herzog called Sidoti’s statements “another lie and another distortion of the facts,” adding that he was visiting the country to “visit my sisters and brothers of the Jewish community to console and pay our respects to the grieving families and to the community.”
Herzog is expected to visit the country from Sunday to Thursday and is slated to meet with Albanese as well as the survivors and the families of the victims of the shooting.
Multiple groups have petitioned for Herzog’s possible arrest. On Thursday, Human Rights Watch cited a U.N. Commission of Inquiry report accusing Herzog and other Israeli leaders of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” in calling on Albanese to consider deploying local laws to prosecute him.
“While showing appropriate concern for the Jewish community, the Australian government should not shy away from denouncing and pushing for an end to the Israeli government’s longstanding serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law,” the human rights NGO said.
The progressive Jewish Council of Australia lodged a legal complaint last week calling for Herzog to be “arrested or barred from entering Australia.”
The complaint, which was jointly filed with the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Australian National Imams Council, alleges that Herzog “incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
Widespread protests against Herzog’s visit have been planned throughout Australia by the Palestine Action Group, including in Sydney, where New South Wales Police have announced restrictions on protests, citing the behavior of some protesters who “continue to incite violence and cause fear and harm.”
New South Wales Police have deployed thousands of officers to ensure the mandate is upheld. They have also warned that they will arrest protesters who breach the restrictions in place.
While officials said during a press conference earlier in the week that there was “no particular known threat” to Herzog known by police, a 19-year-old Sydney man was granted bail on Thursday after he being charged with making online threats to Herzog.
The executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, condemned the protest efforts as the group issued a rebuttal on Friday to claims against Herzog.
“We are disturbed and saddened by the groups and individuals determined to politicise this visit by labelling it ‘divisive’ and attempting to misrepresent Herzog’s words after October 7,” he said in a statement. “Our view is that, after Bondi, Herzog’s visit is not only appropriate, but an essential part of the healing process — and we are very confident we represent the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews in saying as much.”
The post Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The coffee capital of the world
צו הערן דעם אַרטיקל און אַנדערע אַרטיקלען דורכן פֿאָרווערטס־פּאָדקאַסט, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ:
אין מײַנע יונגע יאָרן האָב איך געקוקט סײַ מיט ביטול, סײַ מיט רחמנות אויף די אַלע דערוואַקסענע, קאַווע־אַדיקטן, וואָס קענען ניט אויפֿשטיין אין דער פֿרי אָן אַ טעפּל, אָדער אַ גאַנצן טאָפּ קאַווע. דאָס הייסט, אויף איבער 80% אַמעריקאַנער. זעענדיק ווי דער טאַטע גיסט אָן אַ טערמאָס מיט קאַווע, ער זאָל האָבן מיט וואָס איבערצולעבן די נסיעה צו דער אַרבעט, האָב איך געשוווירן צו זיך אַליין, אַז איך וועל קיין מאָל ניט ווערן פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט פֿון דעם דאָזיקן אומווערדיקן געטראַנק.
אָבער די יוגנט איז פֿול מיט נאַרישע געדאַנקען, און נאָר די יאָרן ברענגען חכמה און פֿאַרשטאַנד. איצט דערמאָן איך זיך אין יענע אידילישע צײַטן און וווּנדער זיך, ווי אַזוי האָב איך אָן קאַווע אָנגעשריבן די אַלע אַרבעטן פֿאַר דער שול און געלייזט די אַלע מאַטעמאַטישע רעטענישן? הײַנט וואָלט איך די רעטענישן ניט געלייזט אַפֿילו מיט קאַווע. נאָר צום גליק, האָב איך אַנטדעקט, אַז די קאַווע איז ניט אַזאַ געפֿערלעכער סם־המוות, ווי איך האָב זיך דעמאָלט פֿאָרגעשטעלט.
פֿאַקטיש שאַדט די קאַווע ניט צום געזונט, פֿאַרקערט, זי היט אָפּ דעם טרינקער פֿון פֿאַרשיידענע קרענק, ווי ראַק און פּאַרקינסאָנס. זי פֿאַרשטאַרקט די מוסקלען, קלאָרט אויס דעם קאָפּ, און גיט צו מער ענערגיע און שוווּנג. ניטאָ קיין ספֿק, אַז אַ גרויסן חלק פֿונעם מענטשלעכן פּראָגרעס אין די לעצטע 400 יאָר האָבן מיר צו פֿאַרדאַנקען דער קאַווע, וואָס אָן איר וואָלטן אונדזערע דערפֿינדער אַנטשלאָפֿן געוואָרן אין מיטן דער אַרבעט און אפֿשר גאָרניט דערפֿונדן.
פּונקט אַזוי וויכטיק ווי די קאַווע אַליין, איז די קולטור אַרום דער קאַווע. אין יאָר 2011 האָט „אונעסקאָ“ אָנערקענט די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור ווי אַ טייל פֿון דער „אוממאַטעריעלער קולטור־ירושה“ פֿון עסטרײַך, און דערמיט באַשטעטיקט ווין ווי די קאַווע־הויפּטשטאָט פֿון דער וועלט. דאָרט איז קאַווע ניט בלויז אַ געטראַנק, נאָר אַ גאַנצער לעבנס־שטייגער מיט אַ טראַדיציע פֿון הונדערטער יאָרן.
לויט דער לעגענדע איז דער ערשטער ווינער קאַפֿע אויפֿגעקומען נאָך אין „מלך סאָביעסקיס צײַטן“ — טאַקע אין 1683, ווען דער פּוילישער קעניג יאַן סאָביעסקי האָט באַפֿרײַט ווין פֿון דער טערקישער באַלאַגערונג. צווישן די זאַכן, וואָס די טערקישע אַרמיי האָט דאָרט איבערגעלאָזט, זײַנען געווען זעק מיט קאַווע־בעבלעך. סאָביעסקי האָט זיי איבערגעגעבן צו זײַנעם אַן אָפֿיציר, וואָס האָט דערנאָך געעפֿנט דעם ערשטן קאַפֿע.
די בליצײַט פֿונעם ווינער קאַפֿע איז אָבער געווען סוף 19טן, אָנהייב 20סטן יאָרהונדערט, ווען די שטאָט האָט געקאָכט מיט קאַוועהויז־ליטעראַטן און קינסטלער. זיי פֿלעגן באַשטעלן איין טעפּעלע קאַווע און זיצן איבער אים אַ גאַנצן טאָג, און דער דעמאָלטיקער קעלנער האָט זיי ניט געטשעפּעט. אין זײַנע זכרונות האָט דער פּראָזאַיִקער שטעפֿאַן צווײַג באַשריבן דעם קלאַסישן ווינער קאַפֿע אַזוי:
„ער שטעלט מיט זיך פֿאָר אַן אינטסיטוציע פֿון אַ ספּעציעלן סאָרט, וואָס מע קען זי ניט פֿאַרגלײַכן מיט קיין ענלעכער אין דער וועלט. דאָס איז טאַקע געווען אַ מין דעמאָקראַטישער קלוב, צוטריטלעך פֿאַר יעדן איינעם פֿאַר אַ ביליקן טעפּל קאַווע, וווּ יעדער גאַסט האָט געקענט פֿאַר אַ גראָשן זיצן שעהען לאַנג, שמועסן, שרײַבן, שפּילן אין קאָרטן, באַקומען זײַן פּאָסט און, דער עיקר, קאָנסומירן אָן אַ שיעור צײַטונגען און זשורנאַלן. יעדן טאָג זײַנען מיר געזעסן שעהען לאַנג, און האָבן גאָרנישט פֿאַרפֿעלט.“
זינט די 1990ער יאָרן איז די קאַוועהויז־קולטור צוריק אַרײַן אין דער מאָדע און די ווינער האָבן מזל, וואָס ניט ווייניק פֿון זייערע אַלטע קאַפֿעען זײַנען נאָך פֿאַראַן — כאָטש ווי ערטער ניט פֿאַר שרײַבער און קינסטלער, נאָר פֿאַר גבֿירים און טוריסטן. אין דער אַלטער קײַזערלעכער קאָנדיטערײַ „דעמעל“, למשל, מישן זיך די ריחות פֿון קאַווע און שאָקאָלאַד מיטן גלאַנץ פֿון שפּיגלען און גאָלדענע הענגלײַכטערס. אַז אַן אָרעמער שרײַבער וואָלט זיך דאָרט געזעצט צו דער אַרבעט, וואָלט ער ניט פֿאַרענדיקט אַפֿילו די ערשטע זײַט, ווײַל די ניט זייער העפֿלעכע קעלנערינס וואָלטן אים אַרויסגעטריבן.
צו דער ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור געהערט אויך אַ רײַך־אַנטוויקלטער קאַווע־וואָקאַבולאַר: באַליבט איז דער „מעלאַנזש“ — האַלב קאַווע, האַלב געשוימטע מילך; די „אײַזקאַווע“ — אַ דריטל קאַווע, אײַזקרעם און קרעם (זייער געשמאַק!); דער „פֿאַרלענגערטער“ — האַלב מאָקאַ (קאַווע מיט שאָקאָלאַד), האַלב הייס וואַסער. ווי אויך מער עקזאָטישע מינים: די „קאָזאַקן־קאַווע“ — אַ מאָקאַ, געמישט מיט צוקער, רויטווײַן און וואָדקע; דער „אָטעלאָ“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ מיט הייסן שאָקאָלאַד; און די „צאַרן־קאַווע“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ, באַדעקט מיטן פֿאַרצוקערטן געלכל פֿון אַן איי. דערצו קומט יעדע קאַווע מיט אַ גלעזל וואַסער און אַ קיכל אָדער ביסקוויט, וואָס מאַכט פֿונעם קאַווע-טרינקען אַ גאַנצע צערעמאָניע.
אין די לעצטע יאָרן איז די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור נאָך „באַרײַכערט“ געוואָרן מיט אַן אַמעריקאַנער אימפּאָרט — די פֿירמע „סטאַרבאָקס“ האָט געעפֿנט אַ צענדליק פֿיליאַלן אין דער שטאָט. איינער אַזאַ קאַפֿע שטייט אַנטקעגן דער „הויפֿבורג“, דעם קײַזערלעכן פּאַלאַץ, וווּ עס האָט אין משך פֿון 600 יאָר רעזידירט די האַבסבורג־דינאַסטיע. דערווײַל זײַנען די ווינער אפֿשר צופֿרידן, וואָס זיי האָבן נאָר אַ צענדליק „סטאַרבאָקס“, און ניט 250, ווי ניו־יאָרק.
איין וויכטיקע זאַך האָב איך זיך געלערנט פֿון די ווינער: דרך־ארץ פֿאַר דער קאַווע. זי איז ניט סתּם אַן אַדיקציע, וואָס האָט פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט כּמעט די גאַנצע מענשהייט. זי איז אַן אַדיקציע מיט אַן אַריסטאָקראַטישער טראַדיציע און מיט אַ לאַנגער היסטאָריע פֿון קינסטלערישער שעפֿערישקייט. אַזוי דאַרף מען טראַכטן, ווען מע פֿילט אָן דעם טערמאָס מיט קאַווע אין דער פֿרי.
The post The coffee capital of the world appeared first on The Forward.