Uncategorized
Trump’s National Security Strategy reveals a painful truth: Israel is newly vulnerable
The central message of the United States’ new National Security Strategy should shake the foundations in Jerusalem: Under the Trump administration, the complex web of values-based diplomacy and global American leadership has been replaced by a Hobbesian vision of constant competition for resources based on self-interest alone.
In such a bleak landscape, the relationship with Israel, once deeply rooted in shared values and a foundational American commitment, is now based on interests also. The Middle East section of the strategy describes the security of Israel as an interest alongside the countries of the Gulf and other Arab nations.
“The key to successful relations with the Middle East is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are, while working together on areas of common interest,” the document says.
Past American administrations, including Republican ones like the two Bush presidencies, believed in spreading democracy – and in this context prized Israel as a fellow democracy, and indeed the only real one in the Middle East. Moreover, democracy and shared values, along with Israel’s special relationship with the U.S., were critical to Israel receiving the economically invaluable associate member status in the European Union in the 1990s.
The current document chides predecessors for trying to spread democracy to countries where it doesn’t fit and seems to value values not at all. So it is no surprise that there is no mention of the 2008 commitment – codified in law – to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge (which even has been dignified with an oft-used acronym, the QME).
The main concern, however, is the basic posture of the document, which places the supreme emphasis on interests and not values.
“The affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests. Our elites badly miscalculated America’s willingness to shoulder forever global burdens to which the American people saw no connection to the national interest,” the document argues. “They allowed allies and partners to offload the cost of their defense onto the American people, and sometimes to suck us into conflicts and controversies central to their interests but peripheral or irrelevant to our own.”
The departure from every administration in the post-War era is clear and overt. Yet the implications for Israel have gone almost unnoticed for two reasons.
First, more sweeping changes have sent shockwaves throughout the world. Russia and China, which were not truly singled out as direct threats, can be relieved. But Europe absorbed a series of broadsides, from fantastical and quasi-racist notions that it will become majority non-white (described as “non-European”), to encouragement of its far-right parties that aim to break up the union and attacks on its efforts to regulate tech (which is annoying Elon Musk, who absorbed a $140 million fine a few weeks ago for X’s digital skullduggeries).
Second, in Israel, which should be worried and aware of the change, there is infantile adoration for President Trump based on the patently false notion that he is a huge friend.
Trump is not a friend of Israel; he is a friend of Netanyahu. Why? Because both men embody the same populist-nationalist worldview: They believe in elected autocracy where the government is all-powerful, they share a disdain for liberalism, and they use external threats — fabricated, exaggerated, or distorted — to confuse and manipulate the public. It is no accident that Trump is drawn more to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin than to Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky: Putin has succeeded in turning an entire country into an absolute dictatorship. This is a model that many right-wing populists around the world quietly admire. Netanyahu is no different.
Trump tried to help Netanyahu at key electoral junctures with U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and by moving the embassy to Jerusalem. But Trump’s true foreign policy — as now revealed in the administration’s most official document — points to something entirely different: The moment Israel does not serve an immediate self-interested need, it becomes simply one ally among many.
It is true that the document is non-binding, and Israel still has other agreements and arrangements in place. But the new NSS faithfully tracks with Trump’s dog-eat-dog worldview. His willingness, for example, to ignore the QME was on vivid display last month when he agreed to sell Saudi Arabia the same level of F35s as Israel, joking with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in televised comments from the White House that Israel won’t be happy with that.
In the past, U.S. support for Israel might have been connected also to electoral victory and especially fundraising from Jewish donors – but that too is changing as support for Israel plummets among the U.S. public, especially among the far-right isolationist wing, and among American youth, because of the country’s brutality in the Gaza war and the generally illiberal posture of the Netanyahu government.
When the American vision of foreign policy is stripped of its moral foundation — a foundation that shaped the post-World War II global order — Israel is in a particularly precarious position. For years, Washington’s unwavering support was built not only on shared interests but on an idea: a shared Western identity, a liberal democracy standing against oppressive forces. Contrary to what many in Israel believe, Democrats carried this banner no less, and perhaps more, than Republicans. They understood the value of the region’s only democracy, even when it faltered.
But Israel abandoned the Democrats with surprising ease. Netanyahu led a dangerous gamble: full alignment with the Republican Party, based on the belief that interests and sympathy among Trumpists were stronger. Yet a partnership based on anti-Muslim animus and global populism is not a values-based alliance, and therefore it is easily discarded. Israel may be left depending on the support in the U.S. of evangelical Christians, which comes with its own complications.
In an environment where America views the world as an endless struggle for material power, and has little interest in discouraging authoritarians or standing up for shared values, Israel’s position weakens dramatically.
The new U.S. strategy makes it clear more than ever: The cards Netanyahu placed on the table were dangerous from the outset. Instead of safeguarding the bipartisan alliance with Washington — the alliance that has been Israel’s ultimate pillar of support — he made it dependent on one side of the political map, and that side no longer believes in shared values or commitments to democracies. When everything is transactional, nothing is assured.
The post Trump’s National Security Strategy reveals a painful truth: Israel is newly vulnerable appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Providence voters pass ballot initiative that could lead to divestment of city funds from Israel
(JTA) — Voters in Providence, Rhode Island, have approved a ballot measure that could result in the city divesting public funds from Israel, according to local media, in a major victory for the Israel boycott movement.
In a major victory for the Israel boycott movement, voters in Providence, Rhode Island, have approved a ballot measure that could result in the city divesting public funds from Israel, according to local media.
With 81 of 82 polling locations partially reported, the Rhode Island Board of Elections tallied 75% voting to approve the measure versus 25% rejecting. Both the Rhode Island Current and the Boston Globe report the measure was approved.
“We are overjoyed that the city of Providence has voted — by more than a 3 to 1 margin — to divest our collective dollars from support for genocide and ethnic cleansing,” Lex Rofeberg, who runs the alternative Jewish engagement network Judaism Unbound and was an organizer with the Providence divestment initiative, told JTA. “This historic moment can serve as an example for other cities around the country hoping to align their investments with their values.”
The ordinance calls for the capital city to refrain from investing in “foreign countries conducting ethnic cleansing, apartheid, illegal military occupation, or genocide.” Though the ballot language does not mention Israel by name, it was heavily supported by local pro-Palestinian groups and opposed by some Jewish and pro-Israel groups.
A representative for the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island previously told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the group would explore legal options to challenge the ballot measure in the event that it passed.
The vote makes Providence the largest municipality yet to vote in favor of some form of Israel divestment, following the lead of Somerville, Massachusetts, whose voters approved a nonbinding divestment measure last year. Providence is home to an estimated 15,000 Jews, or around 7% of its population. Progressive Jewish groups, including the local chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, were among the ballot measure’s advocates.
The city’s mayor, Brett Smiley, a pro-Israel Democrat who converted to Judaism while in office, lost his primary to a democratic socialist, an early indicator of which way the divestment vote would go.
Activist initiatives to challenge U.S. financial aid to Israel have picked up steam in the years since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and ensuing Gaza war. On the morning of Election Day, President Donald Trump, who described aid to Israel as a political liability, announced the U.S. would end nearly $4 billion in annual military aid to Israel by the end of the year.
The post Providence voters pass ballot initiative that could lead to divestment of city funds from Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Republican Lawler concedes to Democrat Conley in fierce battle for Jewish vote in NYC suburbs
(JTA) — Republican congressman Mike Lawler has conceded to Democratic challenger Cait Conley, a former national security official, after competing fiercely for Jewish voters in the lower Hudson Valley of New York.
Lawler has been a staunchly pro-Israel member since joining Congress in 2023, and was endorsed by the Republican Jewish Coalition and the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.
Conley was endorsed by the pro-Israel group Democratic Majority for Israel, and has said she supports Israel while opposing the Benjamin Netanyahu government.
Lawler, who is Catholic, has deep ties to the district’s large Orthodox Jewish population, and touted their support recently when asked about the neck-and-neck polling.
Both Lawler and Conley have tried tying their opponent to polarizing figures in their respective parties. Lawler has asserted that Conley, a moderate, will not separate herself from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and particularly New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has a lower favorability rating outside the city. Conley denounced Mamdani’s statement on the three-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 attack after Lawler challenged her to do so during a debate.
Conley, meanwhile, has tied Lawler to President Donald Trump, accusing him of being a rubber stamp for Trump’s legislative priorities.
The post Republican Lawler concedes to Democrat Conley in fierce battle for Jewish vote in NYC suburbs appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In early LA mayoral results, Karen Bass holds slim lead over Nithya Raman, who sparred with DSA on Israel
Early returns in the Los Angeles mayoral election showed incumbent Karen Bass with a slim lead over Councilmember Nithya Raman, whose comments on Israel became a flashpoint in the race.
The first batch of results — totaling about 500,000 votes — showed Bass leading Raman, 50.8% to 49.2%.
The final outcome may not be known until Wednesday or later, a common occurrence in tight California races due to the preponderance of mail-in ballots. Nearly 90% of California voters did so by mail in the June primary.
But if the primary results are any indication, Bass’ lead may evaporate as more votes are counted.
In the June 2 open primary — a system in which the top two vote-getters from any party advance to a runoff — Raman trailed a Republican, Spencer Pratt, by eight points for second place behind Bass. She won the ensuing batches of mail-in ballots, but did not pass Pratt until June 7. She ultimately surpassed him by more than four percentage points.
Raman, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has clashed with the organization — and frustrated many of her Jewish constituents — while trying to strike a balance on Israel. She has called the war in Gaza a genocide, but declined to adopt the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions platform — a stance that led the DSA to consider expelling her.
Bass, a mainstream Democrat who served six terms in Congress before running for mayor in 2022, entered the race as a historically unpopular incumbent, largely thanks to her response to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. Raman endorsed Bass prior to declaring her own candidacy on the last day to enter the race, a move Bass has characterized as a personal betrayal.
The polls swung back and forth in the weeks leading up to the election. Bass, who won most labor endorsements, was leading until September, when one poll sponsored by the Los Angeles Times showed Raman ahead by 11 points with a third of voters still undecided. A follow-up poll by the Times last week showed the two in a dead heat.
Unlike many other DSA candidates up for election across the country on Tuesday, Raman, an urban policy wonk who immigrated to the U.S. from India when she was 6, never made Israel a focal point of her campaign. Instead, she focused more on housing, homelessness and budget policy.
But her membership in the DSA, an interview she granted Hasan Piker during the primary and the genocide comments dogged her anyway, especially among Jewish Angelenos.
Raman, after publicly condemning the DSA’s anti-Israel statements after Oct. 7, sponsored a resolution for a ceasefire and return of hostages in March 2024, disappointing mainstream Jewish groups who called the motion one-sided. Then, during the primary, Raman told Piker she believed the Gaza war was a genocide and that Israel was an apartheid state. She also said she would not seek the endorsement of pro-Israel Democratic party groups as she had in 2024.
Her record on Israel seemed likely to come up when Raman participated in the candidate forum for Jewish voters Sept. 29. But Raman struggled to get through answers about the DSA, Piker and especially genocide and BDS — which she called a “legitimate form of peaceful protest” — leading to loud audience groans. During Bass’ turn on stage, the mayor said she did not support BDS and did not believe the war in Gaza was a genocide.
Mail-in voters historically skew to the left, and the primary vote may offer a preview of the margin Raman might need.
In that election, about 58% of the total votes were tallied election night, when Bass led Raman 36.5% to 21%. Raman got the biggest share of the ensuing ballot batches, beating Bass by about five percentage points.
The post In early LA mayoral results, Karen Bass holds slim lead over Nithya Raman, who sparred with DSA on Israel appeared first on The Forward.
