Uncategorized
Paraguay’s election has implications for its Israeli embassy — and its relationship with Jerusalem
(JTA) — The question of where countries keep their embassies in Israel has become a debate that perpetually attracts controversy around the globe. In Paraguay, ahead of a national election on Sunday, the question is far from decided.
Since former President Donald Trump moved the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018, a few other countries have followed suit, agreeing with much of Israel’s political establishment that the latter city, despite international and Palestinian opposition, is Israel’s sole capital. Israeli conservatives, such as those currently in power, have looked to court more countries to move their embassies and have counted each example as a historic victory.
The government of Paraguay, a country of around seven million people sandwiched in between Brazil and Argentina, has been back and forth on the Israel embassy issue. Shortly after Trump’s move, Paraguay’s president at the time, Horacio Cartes, moved his embassy as well. That year Guatemala did the same, and a few years later, Honduras and Kosovo followed suit.
But only one month after being elected, in September 2018, Cartes’ successor Mario Abdo announced he would be moving the country’s embassy back to Tel Aviv. Despite being a member of the same conservative party as Cartes, Abdo felt that for “broad, lasting and just peace” among Israelis and Palestinians, Paraguay’s embassy should be in Tel Aviv. Critics of Trump’s decision say declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s sole capital hurts the chances of a two-state solution, as the Palestinians would look to claim part of Jerusalem as their future state capital.
Abdo’s move quickly resulted in pushback. In Paraguay, pro-Israel protesters demonstrated outside the president’s residence in Asuncion. Former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence “strongly encouraged” Abdo to reconsider his decision, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu went beyond rhetoric: he closed Israel’s embassy in Paraguay. It hasn’t reopened since.
Election day on Sunday could bring the debate back to the fore.
One of the two leading presidential candidates is 44-year-old economist Santiago Peña of the Colorado Party, Paraguay’s right-wing political party which has ruled the country for nearly 80 consecutive years (save for the period between 2008 and 2013). The party has been plagued by corruption allegations, and Peña has been tied to these scandals: he was finance minister under Cartes, who was recently sanctioned by the United States for undermining Paraguay’s democracy by “making cash payments to officials in exchange for their loyalty and support.”
Thanks in part to those corruption allegations, a non-Colorado candidate now has a serious shot of winning the presidency this year. Efraín Alegre is a more centrist candidate from Concertación, a coalition of political parties who came together to oppose Colorado’s domination. Earlier this month, polling from Encuesta Atlas had Alegre leading by a few percentage points, though other polling has found Peña in the lead.
In March, in a meeting with the Paraguayan-Israeli chamber of commerce, Peña announced that if he wins the election, one of his first actions as president will be to order the move of the Paraguayan embassy to Jerusalem. He said that Paraguay “recognizes that city as the capital of the State of Israel.”
Efraín Alegre’s last statement on the issue of Paraguay’s embassy came in 2018, shortly after Paraguay initially moved its embassy to Jerusalem. Alegre argued that the move would fuel the conflict.
In a statement provided exclusively to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Alegre confirmed that he would keep Paraguay’s embassy in Tel Aviv.
“Fundamentally, Paraguay is a country that respects international law. In its resolutions 181 of 1947, 478 of 1980, and 2334 of 2016, the United Nations Security Council has made clear the status of Jerusalem, not accepting its annexation or its declaration as the capital of Israel. This position is shared by all nations with only a few exceptions,” he wrote. “There is great potential for exchange and cooperation between Paraguay and Israel, and Paraguay will continue to defend Israel’s right to a peaceful existence. In fact, there is a long relationship of friendship between our nations. Paraguay’s vote at the United Nations in 1947 was the one that gave the majority for the recognition of Israel as an independent state. These close ties were not, nor are they now, subject to the status of Jerusalem.”
The Comunidad Judía del Paraguay, an organization which encompasses all the Jewish institutions in the country , remains apolitical but fervently Zionist, similar to Jewish organizations in other Latin American countries. The community of around 1,000 Jews is mostly affiliated with the Conservative movement and is concentrated in Paraguay’s capital of Asuncion. The city contains a local chapter of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, a Jewish day school and a Hebrew Union that organizes religious and athletic activities.
“We as a community have maintained very good relations with all governments and we will continue to work with whoever is elected,” said Mariano Mirelman, executive director of the Comunidad Judía del Paraguay.
But it is possible that if Peña is elected and moves the embassy, the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will re-enter public discourse in Paraguay. And this has the potential to fuel antisemitic attitudes, according to research by the Latin American Jewish Congress (or LAJC), an arm of the World Jewish Congress.
In Paraguay, serious antisemitism incidents are rare, but according to the LAJC, antisemitism in Paraguay does appear online, especially related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In a yet-to-be- released 2022 study by the LAJC’s Observatorio Web program of more than 42,000 tweets in Paraguay related to Jews, Israel or the Holocaust, 6.45% of them were antisemitic and included making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, which constitutes antisemitism according to the LAJC.
If Paraguay’s embassy does move back to Jerusalem, that would mean that more than half of the embassies in Jerusalem are from Latin America, joining Honduras and Guatemala.
According to Bishara Bahbah, author of “Israel and Latin America: The Military Connection,” it’s not an accident that the majority of these countries are from Central and South America. Although ideologically they may not feel strongly about the embassy issue, they know they can curry favor with the United States by strongly supporting Israel.
“Latin American countries view Israel’s special relationship with the United States as a critical element of their relationship with Israel,” Bahbah tells JTA. “Because if they are in need of U.S. support in one or two or three areas, they tend to lean on Israel to convince the U.S. government to provide them whatever they are seeking.”
Due to its size and lack of regional power, Paraguay’s potential decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem will likely not have a domino effect, Bahbah said. Further, although the Biden administration has left the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, it has shown no signs of pressuring Latin American countries to move their embassies the way the Trump administration did.
Regardless of what happens with Paraguay, Netanyahu has not given up in his fight to have Jerusalem recognized as Israel’s capital worldwide. As he said while visiting Italy last month: “I believe the time has come for Rome to recognize Jerusalem as the ancestral capital of the Jewish people for three thousand years, as the United States did with a gesture of great friendship.”
—
The post Paraguay’s election has implications for its Israeli embassy — and its relationship with Jerusalem appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
How Israel’s Shift from ‘Deliberate Ambiguity’ to ‘Selective Disclosure’ Could Prevent a Nuclear War
A satellite image shows un‑buried tunnel entrances at Isfahan nuclear complex, in Isfahan, Iran, Nov. 11, 2024. Photo: Vantor/Handout via REUTERS
Though it might seem counter-intuitive, Israel needs specific enhancements to its strategic deterrence posture. Among other things, these necessary enhancements center on nuclear doctrine and strategy. Most urgently, Jerusalem should plan for an incremental but defined end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity.”
Why should this argument be taken seriously? Hasn’t Iran’s nuclear potential been degraded or eliminated by Operations “Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion”? During any future war with Iran, wouldn’t Israel already be in firm position to maintain “escalation dominance?”
Gathering the correct answers is more complex than first meets the eye.
Though a non-nuclear Iran would risk greater harms than would Israel in any future war, the more powerful Jewish State could still suffer the grievous consequences of (1) Iranian CBW (chemical-biological) or radiological attacks; and (2) Iran-spurred operational misunderstandings/policy miscalculations.
Iran could also call upon nuclear allies (most plausibly North Korea) to act as witting nuclear proxies, and on sub-state terror groups to inflict various force-multiplying costs. These groups (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi) would likely include both Sunni and Shiite surrogates.
For Israel, there will be derivative strategic issues. Prima facie, the direct Israel-American war against Shiite Iran has strengthened some Sunni state adversaries in the region. To wit, now there will be more compelling reason to expect nuclear moves by Turkey, Egypt, and/or Saudi Arabia. Correspondingly, certain predictable actions by China or Pakistan would further undermine Israel’s core national security.
What should Israel do? A comprehensive remedy would include calibrated policy shifts from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” (Amimut in Hebrew) to “selective nuclear disclosure.” Though nuclear ambiguity has managed to “work” thus far, it will not work indefinitely.
At times, strategic truth must emerge through paradox. For Jerusalem, the greatest risk of catastrophic deterrence failure may lie in the prospect of Israeli nuclear threats that are “too destructive.” Oddly but plausibly, nuclear threat credibility could sometime vary inversely with nuclear threat destructiveness.
To be suitably deterred, an enemy state would require continuing assurances that Israel’s nuclear weapons were effectively invulnerable and “penetration-capable.” This second expectation would mean that Israel’s nuclear weapons not only appear protected from adversarial first-strikes, but are also able to “punch through” enemy active defenses.
Adversarial judgments concerning Israel’s ultimate willingness to engage with nuclear weapons would depend on acquiring certain foreknowledge of these weapons and their operational capabilities. Enemy perceptions of mega-destructive, high-yield Israeli nuclear weapons could undermine the credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrent. Bringing a measured end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity,” on the other hand, would offer a promising corrective for Israel’s ultimate and existential vulnerability. In principle, at least, if an enemy state should ever appear willing to share its nuclear military assets with a surrogate terrorist group, Jerusalem would then need to prepare for nuclear deterrence of sub-state adversaries.
The main point of any shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure” would be to signal that Israel’s “bomb” capability lies safely beyond enemy reach and could punish all levels of enemy aggression. By removing the bomb from its metaphoric “basement,” Israel could best enhance its overall strategic deterrence. A properly-calculated end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” would underscore Israel’s willingness to use measured nuclear forces in reprisal for both first-strike and retaliatory attacks. Also, a defined shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure” would best convince Iran or any other non-nuclear enemy state of Israel’s willingness to use calibrated nuclear force against a non–nuclear aggressor.
What about the so-called “Samson Option?” While generally misunderstood, this option could support Israel’s unrelieved task of strategic dissuasion. For Jerusalem, the reinforcing benefits of “Samson” would lie not in any supposed eagerness to “die with the Philistines,” but in its presumptive deterrent advantages. These expected advantages would lie at the “high end” of Israel’s deterrence options and serve any ultimate requirement of “escalation dominance.”
In assessing optimal levels of “selective nuclear disclosure,” Israel ought to continuously bear in mind that the country’s strategic nuclear objective must always be deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post. If, however, nuclear weapons should ever be introduced into an escalating conflict with Iran or another enemy state, one form or another of actual nuclear war fighting would ensue. At that chaotic tipping point, Israel’s deterrence objective would need to shift from nuclear war avoidance to nuclear war termination.
Conceptually, if Israel were the only nuclear belligerent in a still-impending conflict, it would find itself in an “asymmetrical nuclear war.” If Israel’s foe were also nuclear, Jerusalem would then be engaged in a “symmetrical nuclear war.” Significantly, even in a “symmetrical” conflict, there would remain detectable inequalities of military power. To best support “escalation dominance” amid such destabilizing inequalities, Israel would benefit from prior policy shifts to “selective nuclear disclosure.” For authoritative decision-makers in Jerusalem, there could be no more important step toward national survival.
Prof. Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law, nuclear strategy, nuclear war, and terrorism. In Israel, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018). Professor Beres was born in Zurich at the end of World War II.
Uncategorized
Palestinian Authority TV Promises Israel ‘Will Pass’ and Cease to Exist
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas holds a leadership meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank, April 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Torokman
Having just celebrated 78 years of independence, Israel has proven it is here to stay.
But the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinians in general are adamantly claiming Israel’s status is temporary, while dreaming and hoping for its demise.
“There is no room for two identities,” a host on PA’s official TV channel stated, predicting that Israelis/Jews are “the ones who will pass”:
Official PA TV host:“The Israeli occupation … is taking control of the holy city [Jerusalem] and the Islamic and Christian holy sites in it.
But in this land, there is no room for two identities: [It is] either us or us. We are the ones who will remain and they are the ones who will pass.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Palestine This Morning, March 29, 2026]
A Palestinian researcher similarly taught viewers that Jews “are transient in this land” and that Palestinians are “the true owners”:
Palestinian affairs researcher Muna Abu Hamdiyeh: “We are talking about the Ibrahimi Mosque [i.e., Cave of the Patriarchs] — the Judaization of the site.
The Palestinian understands that [the Jews] are transient in this land.
Everything that the archaeological delegations that have visited Palestine and the Ibrahimi Mosque have presented has proven that the occupation has no connection, no existence and no roots in this land …
As part of our role as those who research the Palestinian cause, history, or archaeology, we must clarify this situation to the Palestinians: We are the true owners of this land, and therefore [we] must not abandon it, no matter what… [The Palestinian] completely understands that he has suffered from violence and aggression [only] because he owns something that the other –who is transient in this place — wants to take from him.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, March 16, 2026]
Another Palestinian academic also envisioned Israel’s downfall, stating at a cultural meeting in Paris that the Palestinians “will win and all of Palestine will be liberated”:
Palestinian researcher Muzna Al-Shihabi: “When we see all the people who came here today just to … hear about Palestine and know better what is happening [in Palestine], this is proof that — honestly, it gives us great hope that in the end we will win and all of Palestine will be liberated.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV News, Feb. 2, 2026]
Manifesting the Palestinian narrative in numerous ways, on at least two separate occasions, PA TV broadcast the following “poet” from Gaza predicting the end of Israel’s “colonial rule” just as other colonial rulers have been defeated:
Gazan poet Adel Al-Ramadi:
“Do not believe that the land will not return
How much has this land been occupied!
How much defilement?
How many soldiers have trodden upon it!
So where are the soldiers?
Where is the rule of the Greeks over us?
Where is the rule of the Tatars?
Where is the rule of the Romans?
Where is the rule of the Persians?
Where is the rule of the Crusaders?
Where is the rule of the English?
Where are the soldiers?
One day you will grow up and ask:
Where is the rule of the Jews?” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Dec. 7, 2025, and April 5, 2026]
PA TV chose to rebroadcast a documentary from 2021 with the conclusion that Israel “will disappear”:
Official PA TV narrator: “Immediately after the [Israeli] occupation of Jerusalem in 1967 and until this day, they have not stopped making attempts to Judaize the place and take control of it, aiming to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque to build the alleged Temple in its place …
This speaking stone is like a person and a place at the same time. Its age is many times greater than the age of the occupation state [i.e., Israel]. The Al-Aqsa Mosque will remain here, the eternal capital Jerusalem will remain here, and the occupation will disappear!” [emphasis added]
Images are shown of Palestinians waving Palestinian flags on the Temple Mount.
[Official PA TV, broadcast of 2021 documentary film “The Speaking Stone,” March 20, 2026]
A released murderer also joined the choir, telling “heroic” imprisoned terrorists that Allah will “liberate the land”:
Released terrorist murderer Shadi Abu Shakhdam: “My message to our heroic prisoners [i.e., terrorists] behind bars: Just as Allah showed us mercy and granted us freedom, Allah willing the time and moment will come when He will show mercy to our brothers and grant them freedom.
Allah willing, there will be freedom with the liberation of both the land and the people.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Giants of Endurance, March 21, 2026]
As Palestinian Media Watch recently reported, there are many more examples of how the PA dreams of Israel’s demise.
World leaders must finally acknowledge this deeply entrenched destructive vision that the PA embraces, and oppose giving the PA any role in the future of the region.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
What it means for Jews when Trump administration officials misquote the Bible
(JTA) — The Bible is back in the news.
In a Pentagon prayer service on April 15, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth quoted what was seemingly meant to be a verse from the ancient Hebrew prophet Ezekiel, but was in fact from the Gospel of Tarantino, as Stephen Colbert quipped.
In response, Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesman, released a statement on X noting that the homage to the auteur’s 1994 film “Pulp Fiction” was intentional. Hegseth had “shared a custom prayer … which was obviously inspired by dialogue in ‘Pulp Fiction.’”
Two days later, the New York Times suggested that President Donald Trump was likely participating in “America Reads the Bible,” a marathon reading of scripture to take place in Washington, D.C.’s Museum of the Bible, as a means to repair his relationship with Catholics after he publicly sparred with the pope over the Iran war and deleted a tweet depicting himself as Jesus Christ.
“President Trump has a complicated relationship with the Bible,” the paper noted. “He has often called it his favorite book, has posed with it for photographers outside a church and has sold his own edition for $60. But he has also struggled to name a favorite passage or even pick a favorite Testament between the two.”
At the event on April 21, Trump read a passage from 2 Chronicles, in which God promises to heal the land if its people “humble themselves, pray, and seek My favor.”
As a scholar specializing in the influence of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish ideas on American history, I can attest that the habit of American leaders citing chapter and verse (accurate or not) is as old as the United States itself. In fact, it dates back to the Pilgrims. It has been a powerful and effective means of cultivating covenantal community. Americans who cited scripture have forged a country unique in world history in the religious freedom it has offered to all its citizens, not the least of which to us Jews, the original biblically bound people.
The America ethos of fighting for freedom and liberty, drawn from the story of the Children of Israel millennia ago, to this day shapes how the United States operates both internally and on the world stage.
Reflecting on the harsh and uncertain early days of Plymouth Colony, William Bradford, who signed the Mayflower Compact and would serve as the territory’s governor for roughly three decades, paraphrased the Exodus story and Moses’ final speech in Deuteronomy. Arriving in the New World, he said, his fellow Pilgrims could only see:
a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men — and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects.
In the first half of this excerpt from his journal, Bradford was alluding to the Israelites’ escape from Egypt into the rough wilderness in which they would wander for 40 years. And then he referenced the mountaintop on the precipice of the Promised Land, Pisgah, on which Moses stood as his people were about to complete their arduous journey as described in the last of the Five Books of Moses. To Bradford, scripture was a source of strength and solace during communally challenging times.
Ten years later, the Puritan leader John Winthrop would describe in similarly Hebraic lens how if Massachusetts Bay Colony’s residents will do right in the eyes of the Lord, “We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies… For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”
Winthrop was misquoting of Leviticus 26:8: “Five of you shall give chase to a hundred, and a hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand.” However, the details were less important than the sense of divine mission that was powering the Pilgrims’ and the Puritan’s project.
Later, the American Founders also possessed a powerful attachment to the Bible, even if the details were sometimes hazy.
John Adams, in 1776, after hearing a sermon paralleling the Patriot cause to Israel’s fight against Pharaoh’s tyranny, ruminated: “Is it not a Saying of Moses, ‘who am I, that I should go in and out before this great People’?” It actually was not a saying of Moses. Adams was conflating Moses’ “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh…” speech in Exodus 3:11 with a a request by a much later Jewish ruler, King Solomon that God “give me now wisdom and knowledge to go out and come in before this people” (2 Chronicles 1:10).
A year earlier, the equally-enamored-with-
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the country’s most biblically literate president ever, often weaved scripture into his seminal addresses, from “four score and seven years ago,” which was likely borrowed from a rabbinic sermon citing a verse in Psalms, to a purposeful paraphrase of Exodus 19:5 when, on Feb. 21, 1861, he referred to Americans writ large as the Lord’s “almost chosen people.”
It hasn’t only been political leaders, of course, who rephrase the Word in an effort to encourage Americans to live up to their highest ideals. Martin Luther King Jr. made reference to that same mountaintop as Bradford in the civil rights leader’s final speech on April 3, 1968 in Memphis. He rousingly reassured his audience that:
We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop… I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
Citing (and mis-citing) scripture, then, is a longstanding and worthy American tradition.
Some Jews might feel excluded by Jesus and New Testament texts being invoked in a nonsectarian context by public leaders, and verses can be abused as opposed to correctly interpreted. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of looking to the Bible to shape the soul of America has served a largely positive purpose. A religious civic space is full of happier, healthier people who give more charity, have more children and forge a strong sense of community.
Regardless of one’s party or views on those in power today, then, quoting the Bible in the American public sphere has long characterized the American experiment. On the whole, it has been largely good for the American collective character and good for the Jews. Occasionally, these quotes might be imperfect, but they reflect a worthy national will: the desire to see through the long march towards liberty and justice for all.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post What it means for Jews when Trump administration officials misquote the Bible appeared first on The Forward.