Uncategorized
New Yorkers protesting Israel’s government say they’ll keep up the fight for the country’s democracy
(New York Jewish Week) – Hundreds of people gathered in front of the Israeli consulate in New York yesterday to stand in solidarity with Israelis who have been protesting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposed changes to Israel’s judiciary, mere hours after a delay in the reforms was announced.
The protesters, who assembled on Second Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Streets, carried Israeli flags, sang Hebrew songs and chanted “Democracy will stand” in between music and speeches from local rabbis and political leaders.
The rally was held the day after Asaf Zamir, the Israeli Consul General in New York, resigned, following Netanyahu’s firing of Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant. “The past 18 months as Israel’s Consul General in New York were fulfilling and rewarding, but following today’s developments, it is now time for me to join the fight for Israel’s future to ensure it remains a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world,” Zamir said in his resignation letter, which was posted to social media.
A majority of the crowd were Israelis living in New York, though cohorts from Park Slope’s Congregation Beth Elohim and supporters of T’ruah, The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, also showed up.
For Israelis, even those who have immigrated to New York, the moment is a crucial one: Even though the legislation has been put on hold until May, it was important to many in the crowd to nonetheless make their voices heard. Attending protests in New York is an opportunity to both show solidarity with friends and family in Israel, some said, as well as impart a sense of urgency on American Jews.
The New York Jewish Week spoke to some of the protesters about what inspired them to protest Israel’s government in New York on a rainy Monday afternoon:
Israel and Hanana are a couple doing a housing exchange in New York. (Julia Gergely)
Israel and Hanana, who declined to provide their last names, are Israelis who have been living in New York for the last year doing a housing exchange with an American family. “We are concerned about what is happening,” Israel said. “It’s disturbing and the country is turning into a dictatorship.”
The couple has not hashed out their plan for when their housing exchange ends. Israel feels that he has to go back to his country. As for Hanana, “I don’t want to go back,” she said. “I can’t live in a dictatorship.” She would like to move to somewhere like Greece or Cyprus, she said.
Hanana carried a Hebrew sign that read “Our hope is not yet lost,” a line from the Israeli national anthem. Israel’s sign read “It’s good to protest for your country,” which is a play on the Hebrew phrase, “It’s good to die for your country,” allegedly said by a Zionist activist who died defending a Jewish settlement in Palestine in 1920.
Lior and Shiran, Israelis who moved to New York 18 months ago, hold signs protesting Prime Minister Netanyahu. (Julia Gergely)
Shiran and Lior, who declined to provide their last names, have been in the United States for a year and half. Last week, they visited friends in Israel but didn’t have time to attend protests, so it was important to them to make their voices heard in New York. “We are married, so for us this has been a really big deal,” Shiran said. At this point, they are planning to stay in New York for good, they said.
Susan Lax, the co-owner of an Israeli shoe company, holds a sign that reads “We must resist.” (Julia Gergely)
“I think that this is going to destroy Israel if we don’t come out in the streets, and my children and grandchildren will not have a country if I’m not out here,” said Susan Lax, who splits her time between the Upper West Side and Tel Aviv.
The co-owner of Naot, an Israeli shoe company, Lax feels the threat on a personal and professional level. “We are shoes of peace. It’s part of what we do,” she said.
If the reforms pass and things continue to deteriorate, “they could come and say you can’t have non-Jews working for you,” she said. “They can destroy everything that the generation above me fought for.”
American support is crucial to the cause, Lax said, whether by visiting Israel or by attending protests like these. “With no Israel, Jews have nothing in the world,” she said. “By not going there, we’re telling them ‘you’re on your own.’”
For Lax, the worst thing Israeli and American Jews could do is to give up hope, or to ease pressure on the government now that the legislation has been put on pause. She’s planning to return to Israel in a week. “Do not despair,” she said. She carried a sign reading, “We must resistance.”
Noa is frustrated with the hypocrisy she feels coming from American Jews who support Israel despite the government’s dangerous policies. (Julia Gergely)
“A lot of American Jews are saying that it’s important to have a Jewish country so they have a refuge if something happens,” said Noa, who declined to provide her last name, who left Israel in 2014 after the Gaza War.
“But it won’t be the case soon,” she said. “Unless they act, unless they stop funding the government that is very far-right, they won’t have a refuge. They won’t have a place to go to if something happens.”
Noa criticized what she sees as the hypocrisy of American Jews, many of whom support the Israeli government no matter what. “They need to understand that next time they go to visit Israel, their wives might have to wear a head cover and men and women might be separated in many places, and maybe gay people won’t be able to live there,” she said there, presenting a worst case scenario should the haredi Orthodox parties continue to wield power in a right-wing government. “They really need to think about it and act accordingly.”
The Israeli government’s rightward shift confirmed her decision to move away, Noa said. Nonetheless, the country will always be her home. “My heart is still there,” she said. “But I don’t really see a future. It’s either dictatorship or democracy.”
Noa Osheroff believes this is also a moment to fight for Palestinian Liberation, carrying a sign suggesting as much in Hebrew, English and Arabic. (Julia Gergely)
Noa Osheroff, an Israeli who has lived in New York for eight years, is using this moment to fight for democracy and representation for both Israelis and Palestinians.
“A group of friends and I have decided to collaborate around the protests and create a more radical group,” Osheroff said. “I always joined demonstrations and was vocal about my opinions, but I don’t work for any political organizations and I can’t even say I’m a big activist.”
In recent weeks, though, it’s become increasingly important to her to make sure that Palestinian liberation is included in the call for democracy, as well as to call out the United States government for enabling Netanyahu’s policies. The sign she carried, “From the river the sea — democracy for all,” repurposes a slogan often used by the pro-Palestinian movement to call for a single democratic state — neither Jewish nor Palestinian — in what is currently Israel and the territories. “The protests are so Zionist,” she said. “It kind of bothered me, especially in the U.S., because the U.S. funds a lot of what’s going on in the settlements. People don’t necessarily see the connection, but what’s happening now is in part a result of the occupation.”
—
The post New Yorkers protesting Israel’s government say they’ll keep up the fight for the country’s democracy appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.