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
He was Zohran Mamdani’s Jewish wingman. What’s next for Brad Lander?
(JTA) — When Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani were jointly honored at a left-wing Jewish event in September, the two politicians’ alliance was at the center of the evening.
Lander, who had cross-endorsed Mamdani in the Democratic primary months earlier, said he was “proud to be a Jew for Zohran” during his speech at the Mazals gala, hosted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. The pair hugged onstage as comedian Ilana Glazer introduced them. The mood was celebratory, albeit sprinkled with cautious reminders that there was still a general election to win.
Nearly two months later, Mamdani fulfilled expectations with an election win. Lander would attend his election night rally, celebrating Andrew Cuomo’s loss with a T-shirt that read “Good f—ing riddance.”
But his future in the city’s new order was uncertain. After Lander reportedly angled for a top position in Mamdani’s City Hall, Mamdani filled out his leadership team with others, leaving Lander in the cold when his tenure as comptroller ends next month. Now, he appears to be considering a run for Congress in his district, setting up a potential rare instance of a Jewish progressive challenging a Jewish centrist.
“I won’t be making any news tonight,” Lander warned with a smile at an event Wednesday night for Standing Together, an Israel-Palestinian peace-building organization. Supporters greeted him after the event, many saying they’d be happy to canvass and vote for him should he run for Congress.
“There are many ways to serve, and I will have more to say about the ones that I am looking forward to in the future,” Lander said in an interview after the event.
Lander told Crain’s New York Business last week that he is “very seriously considering” challenging Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th Congressional District in next year’s midterm Democratic primary. A poll taken last month suggests that he would stand a strong chance.
Israel would likely weigh heavily in a Lander-Goldman matchup. Lander is a self-described liberal Zionist whose criticism of Israel has intensified since his alliance with Mamdani, a longtime anti-Zionist. Goldman is a moderate who did not endorse in the general election for mayor, saying he was “very concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from Zohran Mamdani,” and that he wanted to see Mamdani condemn “violence in the name of anti-Israel, anti-Zionism.”
The New York Times reported on Friday that Mamdani had urged Lander to challenge Goldman — in the same conversation where he told Lander he wouldn’t be hiring him at City Hall.
The 10th Congressional District covers Lower Manhattan, as well as parts of western and central Brooklyn, where Lander was a three-term City Council member. While Lower Manhattan was more split in the general election, most of the district’s Brooklyn neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for Mamdani. The district also includes part of Borough Park, a neighborhood with a large Orthodox Jewish population that strongly supported the centrist mayoral candidate, Andrew Cuomo.
There has been an appetite in progressive circles for Goldman to be replaced in 2026 by a candidate more aligned with their politics. “Dump Dan” flyers were handed out to people lining up for Wednesday’s event with Lander, held in a Brooklyn Heights church that falls within the district.
“I would love to see Brad in Congress,” said Arlene Geiger, founder and coordinator of the Upper West Side Action Group, which endorsed Lander in the Democratic mayoral primary.
“I think he’s progressive and Dan Goldman is very tied to AIPAC,” she continued, referring to the Israel lobby that is seen as increasingly toxic by Democrats. “I don’t like his position on the Middle East at all. He’s more of a centrist.”
Geiger’s group is based outside the district, but she said in an interview that it “would be happy to be working” on Lander’s campaign to challenge Goldman.
A September poll by Data for Progress surveyed voters in the 10th congressional district; in a two-man race between Goldman and Lander, the poll found that Lander would win 52-33.
But Democratic strategist Trip Yang advised pumping the brakes, pointing out that polls taken so far in advance of an election “don’t matter as much” and that incumbents bring an advantage. Plus, he noted, City Council member Alexa Aviles, who’s reported to have interest in the seat, could pose an obstacle for Lander.
“In a lot of ways, Alexa Aviles has a higher ceiling as a congressional candidate than Brad Lander,” Yang said, pointing out that 20% of the district is Latino, and that she would likely have the Democratic Socialists of America’s endorsement, giving her more of “the Zohran imprint.”
At first, the DSA privately committed not to endorse any of Lander’s hypothetical opponents, but — after Lander held out while awaiting a potential job under Mamdani — has since voted to back Aviles, a longtime member, the New York Times reported on Friday, adding that multiple sources said Mamdani has said he would back Lander. Maneuvering is reportedly underway within the left-wing group, which counts the mayor-elect as its most prominent member, to avert the progressive split that delivered the seat for Goldman in 2022.
While already a known quantity as the city’s top financial officer, Lander gained “the Zohran imprint” himself by closely associating with the mayoral frontrunner since June. Lander also gained recognition over his recent protests against ICE, for which he was arrested by federal agents at an immigration court.
After finishing third in the ranked-choice primary, Lander actively stumped for Mamdani throughout the general election campaign to help defeat Cuomo a second time.
“I was proud to do that — I have been proud all the way through the general election campaign to campaign with him, side by side,” Lander said this week. He added that he would “continue to work in close partnership” with Mamdani to achieve his campaign goals.
Throughout the election, Lander worked to ease concerns from many Jewish New Yorkers about Mamdani’s position on Israel, including his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Lander sought to reinforce Mamdani’s commitment to the safety of Jewish New Yorkers, and showcased the democratic socialist’s engagement with Jewish communities.
He brought Mamdani to the progressive synagogue Kolot Chayeinu, where Lander is a member, for Rosh Hashanah services, and accompanied Mamdani for Kol Nidre services at another progressive congregation.
He spoke highly of Mamdani at the Mazals. “Having an immigrant Muslim mayor with a genuinely inclusive vision — and that brilliant smile — it offers us a chance for us to strengthen what is, for so many of us, so deeply Jewish about this city,” Lander said. “And that’s why I’m proud to be a Jew for Zohran.”
Critics said Lander’s efforts merely “kosherized” antisemitism at a time when fierce reaction to the war in Gaza led to Jews feeling unsafe and isolated, and anti-Jewish attacks rose.
“Lander is part of a larger story of the collapse of New York’s Jewish-political establishment, which has forced Jews to seek representation in non-Jewish politicians who inevitably get told to mind their business when they criticize anti-Semitism,” the conservative pundit Seth Mandel wrote in Commentary in June. “Lander has played an important role in this collapse by being a sherpa of sorts for rising Jew-baiters.”
And as the election wore on, Lander seemingly moved closer toward Mamdani’s positions; he began using the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s military campaign in Gaza — a term he had previously refrained from using — during a Yom Kippur service in October.
Lander credited that shift in terminology to conversations he had with his daughter, who had read Raphael Lemkin — the Holocaust survivor who coined the term “genocide” — in a college class.
“She had read a lot of Lemkin and she brought it forward to me, and pushed me pretty hard,” he said. “And we had a lot of conversation, debate back and forth — we’re not so different from many other families full of liberal Zionist parents and further left kids.”
He added, “You can continue to be a liberal Zionist who believes in the vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and be honest about what Israel has been doing to Palestinians in Gaza, and the West Bank as well.”
In his efforts to warm Jewish voters to the idea of voting for Mamdani, Lander spoke to groups like the Upper West Side Action Group — which had endorsed him in the primary — and took questions about Mamdani from an audience that was mostly Jewish.
Geiger, the group’s coordinator, said Lander’s endorsement helped grow Mamdani’s support among their voters who were unsure because of the candidate’s stance on Israel, as well as the 34-year-old Assembly member’s lack of executive experience.
“There were those, I think, who were swayed by Brad’s endorsement because they like Brad, and knew him,” said Geiger, who is Jewish.
Yang said he believed that Lander’s advocacy boosted Mamdani’s appeal. “I don’t know if Zohran has this big of a winning margin without Brad Lander,” he said. “You have to give Brad credit for this.”
The post He was Zohran Mamdani’s Jewish wingman. What’s next for Brad Lander? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Is dining-hall matzah ‘DEI’? The answer isn’t clear to UVA’s pushed-out ex-president.
(JTA) — Months after being forced out as president of the University of Virginia, Jim Ryan is still pondering Passover food.
More specifically, Ryan, who was pushed out of the role over the summer amid mounting GOP pressure on the public university, cited the topic as an example of why he was confused about the “DEI ban” imposed earlier this year by the public school’s board. The ban had been drafted by the office of the state’s Republican governor.
“It’s not clear even today what it means to kill DEI,” Ryan wrote in a letter Friday to the UVA faculty senate telling his side of the story.
He went on: “For example, did it mean that we could no longer try to recruit qualified first-generation students from rural parts of Virginia, or offer financial aid, or even serve matzah in the dining halls during Passover, because each of those efforts would be advancing diversity, equity, and/or inclusion?”
The candid look behind the curtain was a reflection of broader struggles on campuses to satisfy conservative demands on both antisemitism and DEI. As the Trump administration has taken up the mantle of campus antisemitism after the Oct. 7 attacks, it has strong-armed universities to make substantial changes in order to preserve their federal funding — not just to its dealings with Jewish students, but also to other conservative hobbyhorses like DEI initiatives.
The first public university to strike a deal with Trump to end an antisemitism investigation, UVA was also quick to fall in behind a “DEI ban.” The school is now becoming a flashpoint as Glenn Youngkin, the outgoing Republican governor who pushed the DEI ban, and Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, elected as part of a broader “blue wave” opposing Trump, are warring over who gets to appoint Ryan’s replacement.
Ryan, who remains an emeritus professor at the school, wrote that he felt compelled to revisit his resignation because Youngkin’s assertions about the state of affairs at UVA needed to be corrected.
“I think it is time to set the record straight, which will hopefully enable UVA to make all necessary changes in order to end this chapter and begin a fresh, new chapter in the history of a remarkable university,” Ryan wrote.
The DEI ban was only part of UVA’s turmoil this summer. A subsequent Justice Department investigation into the school’s student admissions and hiring practices, Ryan wrote, soon expanded without warning into an antisemitism investigation.
“We assembled voluminous information related to admissions for one or more of our twelve schools, and a few days before the deadline for submission, we would receive another DOJ inquiry asking about another school,” he wrote. “They also sent a letter asking about antisemitism and one alleged incident of antisemitism in particular. Each time the scope of the DOJ inquiry expanded, our lawyers asked for and received extensions for submission of material.”
Ryan did not elaborate on the specifics of the “one alleged incident of antisemitism” in his letter but said that investigators’ interest in antisemitism seemed to be “part of a pattern” of the DOJ throwing more and more allegations against the school. He also speculated that the investigators were simply using such allegations as a leverage tactic against the school.
“It is impossible for me to know, but the timing of the DOJ letters, the ever expanding scope of their inquiries, and their willingness to give us extension after extension made me wonder more than once if the DOJ was not actually interested in our response,” he wrote. He came to conclude that the government wouldn’t drop its investigations, including on antisemitism, unless he stepped down.
Ryan did so this June, after which UVA reached a settlement with the government to drop its antisemitism investigation and others. Unlike other university deals with Trump, this one did not require UVA to pay a fine. Instead, the school agreed to abide by Justice Department guidelines on other issues not related to antisemitism, including the school’s existing general ban on DEI.
As for matzah in the dining hall, no school has yet been criticized as excessively inclusive for offering kosher food. In fact, several universities facing allegations of antisemitism tied to their handling of anti-Israel protests have expanded their kosher dining-hall offerings as part of their overtures to Jewish students.
The post Is dining-hall matzah ‘DEI’? The answer isn’t clear to UVA’s pushed-out ex-president. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Following uproar, IDF cantor to perform at Amsterdam Hanukkah concert after all — but not for everyone
(JTA) — The IDF’s chief cantor will be allowed to perform for Hanukkah in Amsterdam’s Royal Concert Hall — but not for everyone — after tensions over Israel ripped through one of the city’s most popular Jewish celebrations.
The Royal Concert Hall, or Concertgebouw, last week canceled the performance to be hosted by the Chanukah Concert Foundation because it featured Shai Abramson, the “representative cantor of the State of Israel” and chief cantor of the Israeli army. The organization said it based this decision on “the IDF’s active involvement in a controversial war” and “Abramson’s visible representation of that institution.”
The Chanukah Concert Foundation responded by threatening a lawsuit over “restriction of religious freedom.” The conflict spread to protests, rifts in the Jewish community and a war of words between the Israeli government and the mayor of Amsterdam. But on Wednesday, the Concertgebouw and the Jewish foundation announced a compromise.
They settled on separate concerts on Dec. 14, the eve of Hanukkah. During the afternoon, the Concertgebouw will host a public, family-focused concert without Abramson. In the evening, as sundown falls and the first Hanukkah candle is lit, Abramson will sing at two private concerts in the same hall for guests who already bought tickets to see him.
“Over the past week, we have seen the situation escalate into tension. We agree that this damaging trend must stop,” the organizations said in a joint statement. They added that proceeds from Abramson’s concerts would be donated to “a charity that promotes social cohesion in the city.”
Across the Netherlands, residents have grown increasingly critical of Israel and its two-year campaign in Gaza. A survey in September found that 58% of Dutch people wanted their government to take tougher actions against Israel, including boycotts, statements that Israel is committing genocide and recognition of a Palestinian state.
Abramson’s cancellation prompted an outcry among some prominent Dutch Jews and Jewish organizations.
Former lawyer Oscar Hammerstein called for a boycott of the Concertgebouw in the newspaper De Telegraaf. Leon de Winter, Jewish Dutch novelist and columnist for the paper, wrote that “Joseph Goebbels would happily give the Concertgebouw management a pat on the back.”
Dozens of people have protested outside the Concertgebouw in recent days. They were supported by the Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, a Dutch group that advocates for Israel and Jews.
David Serphos, a board member and spokesperson of the Chanukah Concert Foundation, said the cancellation “caused a lot of pain” among many Dutch Jews who see the Concertgebouw as a special place. The building first hosted a Hanukkah concert in December 1914, according to Barry Mehler, the head of a separate Hanukkah concert for the Jewish Music Concerts Foundation. The tradition was interrupted by World War II and revived only in 2015.
“It’s situated in a part of the city where a lot of Jews live,” Serphos said in an interview. “A lot of Jews go to the Concertgebouw either weekly or monthly. They are regular guests.”
An anti-Zionist Dutch Jewish group is planning to protest outside the Concertgebouw on Dec. 14, the day of the Hanukkah concerts, when they will also light a menorah. The group, Erev Rav, an anti-Zionist Jewish group, garnered over 2,200 signatures on a petition backing the Concertgebouw’s cancellation decision and said it was “deeply disappointed” by the compromise with the Chanukah Concert Foundation.
“The Concertgebouw’s initial refusal to provide a stage to a representative of a military perpetrating mass atrocities was a principled position grounded in an understanding of the way Zionist propaganda, including through the arts, sustains a genocidal regime,” Erev Rav said on Instagram, where it also accused the “Dutch Zionist lobby” of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
The Israeli government exerted its own pressure on the Concergebouw. Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli said in a letter to Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema on Nov. 4 that Abramson’s cancellation was “an act of moral cowardice and discrimination.”
Referencing the Holocaust history of the Netherlands, where 75% of Dutch Jews were killed, Chikli said, “Once again, Jews are being told that their identity, their art, and their connection to Israel make them unwelcome.”
Halsema lashed back in her own letter. Acknowledging “the fear and pain felt within Amsterdam’s Jewish community,” she said that she “strongly and unequivocally” rejected Chikli’s suggestion of antisemitism by the Concertgebouw.
“I find the comparison with the persecution and extermination of Jews during the Second World War beyond despicable,” said Halsema. “That history demands accuracy and integrity, not instrumentalization.” She also rebuked “any attempt to pressure or intimidate” local leadership and said that Amsterdam “will not be governed by foreign institutions, nor driven by external political agendas.”
Serphos said the Chanukah Concert Foundation was satisfied with their compromise and hoped to move on from the conflict.
“We want to continue working with the Concertgebouw,” he said. “We want to look ahead and not look back, and we’re happy that we managed to find common ground.”
The post Following uproar, IDF cantor to perform at Amsterdam Hanukkah concert after all — but not for everyone appeared first on The Forward.