Uncategorized
Who’s who in Israel’s new far-right government, and why it matters
(JTA) – As the sun set on the fourth night of Hanukkah in Israel on Wednesday, incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to announce that he had successfully formed his new coalition government after more than five weeks of negotiations.
There are some asterisks: Netanyahu hasn’t officially signed any coalition deals yet with other parties (he has until 48 hours before the new government is seated Jan. 2 to do so), and some of his expected new partners are first demanding new legislation that has been delayed until after coalition talks.
But Netanyahu seems confident that he has formed a coalition that will grant him a comfortable majority in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Assuming he pulls it off before the swearing-in date, Israel seems set to welcome a new set of ministers who have set off alarm bells around the globe for their extremist beliefs and records.
Among the most worried observers are the U.S. government and Diaspora Jewish groups, who warn that, should these ministers get their way, Israel would be placing its status as both a pluralistic Jewish and democratic state at serious risk.
So what has everyone so concerned? Before the new government looks to be formally seated in January, here’s what you need to know about who’s set to take power in Israel.
Who’s in the new government?
Netanyahu’s coalition is full of incendiary characters hailing from Israel’s far-right and haredi Orthodox wings — including multiple fringe figures who until recently had been shunned by the country’s political mainstream, but who the incoming prime minister needs on his team in order to hold a governing majority (and attempt to dodge his own corruption charges).
Chief among them is Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, who will likely hold a newly created ministry position that gives him power over the state’s police force. A onetime follower of Jewish extremist rabbi Meir Kahane, Ben-Gvir has been convicted of incitement over his past support of Israeli terrorist groups and inflammatory comments about Israel’s Arab population. He has also encouraged demonstrations on the Temple Mount by religious nationalists that often lead to sectarian violence, leaving analysts worried about what he would do once placed in control of the state’s police force.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of Israel’s Otzma Yehudit party, and Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionist Party, attend a rally with supporters in the southern Israeli city of Sderot, Oct 26, 2022. (Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP via Getty Images)
In addition, the new government will include Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the extremist-aligned Religious Zionist party, who has been accused by Israeli security forces in the past of plotting violent attacks against Palestinians. Like Ben-Gvir, Smotrich will also likely be given a newly created ministership role in Netanyahu’s government to oversee Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank — a move which liberal groups say would lead to “de facto annexation” given his desire to expand settlements and deny Palestinian claims to the area.
Smotrich, who will additionally hold the position of finance minister, is also fervently anti-LGBTQ in a country that prides itself on its treatment of LGBTQ citizens. He has organized opposition to pride parades and compared same-sex relationships to bestiality.
He’s not the only incoming anti-LGBTQ minister: Avi Maoz, head of the far-right Noam party, has described himself as a “proud homophobe” and has called all liberal forms of Judaism a “darkness” comparable to the Hellenistic Empire that controlled the Jews in the Hanukkah story. (A leading Israeli LGBTQ group has invited him to attend a pride parade.) Maoz would headline a new “National Jewish Identity” education position with the power to demand certain content be taught in schools. He has said he wants to fight liberal attempts to “brainwash the children of Israel” with progressive ideology, aligning him with many figures on the American right today.
Another controversial figure in Israel’s new government is Aryeh Deri, head of the haredi Orthodox Shas party, who is set to become interior and health minister pending new legislation. Deri has been convicted of tax fraud and served 22 months in prison in 2002 — which would bar him from holding a ministry position, unless Netanyahu can pass a law allowing him to serve. (There are reports that Netanyahu’s party, Likud, may offer Deri the position of alternate prime minister if the court rules he cannot serve in the Cabinet.) Netanyahu himself is embroiled in a years-long corruption trial, and may be relying on his allies to help shield him from the consequences of an eventual verdict.
Who’s not in?
Not all Israelis are excited to see Netanyahu return to power. Hundreds of protesters recently took to the streets of Tel Aviv to object to his pending far-right alliance.
Government officials have also lashed out against him in the press. Outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid, outgoing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, outgoing Diaspora Affairs Minister Nachman Shai and a coalition of business executives are among the figures warning that the new laws, in the hands of the new government, would turn Israel into an illiberal state.
Benny Gantz — the outgoing defense minister and Netanyahu’s former rival-turned-unlikely-political-partner — had been floated as a wild card coalition contender in the wake of this fall’s election: A unity government involving his Blue and White party and Likud would reduce Netanyahu’s need to cater to far-right parties. But Gantz has not been mentioned in recent reporting on Netanyahu’s coalition negotiations.
How could the new government change Israel?
In some ways, it already has. As a precondition to some of his coalition deals, Netanyahu is pushing laws through the Knesset that grant new powers to his incoming ministers, allowing them expanded oversight of everything from law enforcement to Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Shas party is also demanding an overhaul of the Israeli court system that would grant more authority over rabbinic judges and less oversight from secular ombudsmen, a move that legal observers in the country warn would cripple the judiciary and open the door to misconduct by rabbinic judges.
Netanyahu’s opposition bloc, which successfully ousted him in 2021 only to see its own coalition crumble a year later, is still in power through the end of the year and tried to delay Netanyahu’s moves with parliamentary gamesmanship this week. While they weakened some of the laws Netanyahu sought to pass, they seem to have failed to prevent the incoming PM’s ability to form a government.
Some figures in the new government also favor policies backed by the country’s Orthodox rabbinate that are hostile to much of Diasporic Jewry. Among the sweeping changes that could soon be on the table:
Removing the “grandchild clause,” a rule that allows anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent to apply for Israeli citizenship, from the country’s Law of Return (haredi parties have promised to back off trying to change the Law of Return in the short-term);
Passing a law to no longer recognize non-Orthodox converts to Judaism as Israeli citizens, reversing a recent high court decision;
And scuttling long-in-the-works plans to create a permanent egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall.
How will this affect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?
The answer many experts would give: What peace process?
With Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and other new ministers presenting themselves as openly hostile to Palestinian statehood, the chances of restarting viable negotiations for a two-state solution in the near future are slim to nil. Netanyahu continues to insist that any formal peace process would require the Palestinians to allow Israel to maintain some manner of security presence in the occupied territories, terms which the Palestinian Authority has strongly refused.
People gather to protest against the far-right upcoming coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Dec. 17, 2022. (Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
With a recent rise in violent attacks on Israelis and Palestinians alike forefront in citizens’ minds, security concerns were a foremost reason why Israel’s recent elections played out so well for the right wing. There is little incentive for the new government to engage in peace talks.
In addition, one of the carrots Netanyahu offered to his incoming coalition members was that the Israeli government would formally recognize a greater number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which the international community consider to be part of an illegal occupation. Such a move would even further deteriorate relations with Palestinians and the international community.
Netanyahu’s discussions with other Arab nations, however, are continuing unabated. Seeking to build off of the success of the Abraham Accords, he recently hinted that Saudi Arabia may soon join the normalization agreements, urging the United States to formalize their own relationships with the Saudis.
What is the U.S. response?
The United States is certainly worried about the rightward direction Israel is headed in. President Joe Biden has often boasted of his decades-long “friendship” with Netanyahu, but that relationship is soon to be tested the further the Israeli leader embraces his coalition partners, some of whom the Biden administration has hinted it would refuse to work with directly.
Biden’s current strategy, insiders told Politico, is to work only through Netanyahu and to hold the prime minister responsible for any actions taken by his Cabinet. In interviews with American media, Netanyahu has insisted that he is still fully in control of his government.
Mainstream American Jewish groups including Jewish Federations of North America and the American Jewish Committee have stewed over Netanyahu and tried to reaffirm a commitment to “inclusive and pluralistic” policies in Israel, but they have publicly said they would wait until the new government was formed to make any judgments. Abe Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, has warned he “won’t be able to support” Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s vision for Israel.
Other groups, like B’nai Brith International and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have characterized the new government as just the latest in a long line of Israeli governments they have successfully worked with.
Most American Jews are politically liberal, support a two-state solution, generally oppose Netanyahu and also highly prize the sense of egalitarianism that his new government has threatened to do away with. Any changes to the Law of Return, in particular, would be catastrophic for the relationship between Israel and American Jews, warns Union for Reform Judaism President Rabbi Rick Jacobs.
—
The post Who’s who in Israel’s new far-right government, and why it matters 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.