Shalom all,
The elections in Israel and the United States have exposed a changing political reality. But the developments that have followed are perhaps even more revealing. From growing disagreements between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran, to the emergence of increasingly hostile political voices in Washington and the open intimidation of Jews on American streets, the challenges facing Israel and its relationship with the United States are becoming harder to ignore.
In my November 5 article, America at the Crossroads: What the 2026 Elections Mean for Israel – and What Israel Must Do Now, I discussed the erosion of bipartisan support for Israel and the need for Israel to prepare for a potentially different relationship with Washington. Subsequent developments have brought those concerns into sharper focus.
But there is an even more disturbing development that deserves particular attention: the growing tendency to accept, repeat, and act upon unsubstantiated accusations against Israel, Jews, and Zionism without examining the facts. Increasingly, public opinion appears willing to accept accusations simply because they are repeated often enough, regardless of their accuracy or the evidence supporting them. This is not merely a political disagreement. It represents a dangerous surrender of independent judgment and critical thinking.
Less than a century has passed since the Holocaust. Yet Jew hatred and antisemitism, twin evils that never disappeared, are again becoming increasingly visible, not only in the corridors of government through anti-Israel political voices, but also on the streets of countries that pride themselves on their democratic values. The question is how much more hostility, intimidation, and distortion of historical truth will be tolerated before people recognize the danger.
Iran: The disagreement that could redefine the relationship.
Perhaps the most immediate test of the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu concerns Iran. According to World Israel News, the two leaders reportedly had an exceptionally heated telephone conversation over whether the United States should resume large-scale military operations against Tehran. Netanyahu’s office rejected the characterization of the conversation, while a senior Israeli official described it as not difficult.
Nevertheless, the reported disagreement points to a significant difference in priorities. Netanyahu reportedly favors renewed military action, while Trump has increasingly expressed a preference for diplomatic negotiations and economic pressure.
The difference is understandable. For the United States, another military confrontation carries substantial political, economic, and regional consequences. For Israel, however, the Iranian threat is not an abstract foreign-policy concern. It is an existential security issue involving a regime that has repeatedly threatened Israel’s destruction and supported terrorist organizations throughout the region.
Trump’s November 12th declaration that the United States no longer needs an agreement with Iran adds another dimension to the uncertainty. Meanwhile, Iran’s former IRGC commander and senior security official Mohsen Rezaei has vowed that not one grain of enriched uranium will leave Iran and threatened American bases in Europe should the United States attack again.
These developments expose the central problem. What Washington might consider a satisfactory conclusion to the confrontation may not address Israel’s fundamental security requirements. An arrangement that leaves Iran with enriched uranium, the capacity to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, and its regional network of armed proxies would hardly constitute a lasting solution.
Israel cannot afford to regard the difference between an American diplomatic objective and its own existential security requirements as a minor disagreement.
From political rhetoric to intimidation on American streets…
The changing political climate is not confined to Washington. It is increasingly finding expression in public demonstrations and the intimidation of Jewish individuals and businesses.
A particularly disturbing example occurred in Philadelphia on November 8, when an anti-Israel group organized a boycott bicycle demonstration targeting six Jewish-owned businesses. The timing was especially troubling: the demonstration took place immediately before the 88th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the November 9–10, 1938, pogrom during which Nazi groups and German civilians attacked Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues.
The organizing group, Philly Bike On Your Left, describes itself as an anti-fascist, anti-Zionist social cycling collective. It identified the establishments as “Zionist establishments,” claiming that the demonstration was directed at their owners’ support for Israel rather than their Jewish identity.
That explanation becomes difficult to accept when one considers what actually occurred. Jewish individuals who questioned the demonstrators were subjected to antisemitic insults. One demonstrator shouted, “Get out of our country, Jew!” Another, when questioned about the timing of the demonstration in relation to Kristallnacht, responded, “Maybe they learn their lesson this time.”
The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia rejected the organizers’ explanation, asserting that the businesses were targeted because they were Jewish-owned.
There is a fundamental distinction between criticizing Israel’s government, advocating a boycott of Israeli products, and targeting Jewish-owned businesses in an American city. When such activity is accompanied by antisemitic insults and references to a historical pogrom against Jews, it can no longer be dismissed as ordinary political expression.
Lawful demonstrations and freedom of expression are essential democratic rights. But those rights do not provide immunity for threats, assault, or intimidation. Philadelphia police reported approximately 300 anti-Israel demonstrators and 200 counterprotesters. Three individuals were arrested, including one on an assault charge. Nevertheless, the incident raises serious questions about whether Jewish citizens are receiving the same protection from intimidation and hostility that should be afforded to every other community.
The danger is that the normalization of such conduct will encourage further intimidation, while the absence of effective deterrence may convince those responsible that they can continue without meaningful consequences.
When does anti-Zionism become antisemitism? The answer becomes increasingly apparent when Jews are singled out, threatened, or treated as legitimate targets because of their connection to Israel. The distinction between opposing a government’s policies and directing hostility toward an entire religious or ethnic community must not be allowed to disappear.
The political implications are becoming clearer.
The developments in Washington provide a broader context for what is happening on American streets.
New Jersey Congressman-elect Adam Hamawy, for example, refused to characterize Iran as an American adversary when questioned during a CNN interview. He suggested that the United States had pushed Iran into a confrontation and that both countries should step back, adding: “We’re making adversaries when we should be making friends.”
There is nothing inherently objectionable about advocating diplomacy. But responsible diplomacy requires acknowledging the nature and history of the other party. Iran’s decades of hostility toward the United States, its support for terrorist organizations, and its attacks against American interests cannot simply be dismissed as consequences of American policy.
A recent Buckley Institute survey of 803 American undergraduates found that 38% considered “Palestine” a better American ally than Israel, compared with 25% who selected Israel. Another 37% were undecided. The survey also found that 22% agreed with the statement, “America deserved September 11th.” These findings should not be interpreted as representing all American university students, but they are nevertheless deeply troubling and should be a cause for concern for every American.
This concern extends beyond the immediate political influence of these students. Attitudes developing on university campuses today may become the prevailing assumptions of tomorrow’s political leadership.
That possibility is already becoming apparent. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called for a major overhaul of American policy toward Israel, including reconsideration of the existing military assistance framework.
This moves the debate beyond criticism of particular Israeli military operations or disagreements with Netanyahu’s government. It challenges the institutional foundations of American-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation. Israel has legitimate reason to be concerned when opposition to a particular government’s policies begins translating into efforts to dismantle longstanding strategic arrangements.
The security consequences are no longer abstract.
The Iranian threat is not directed exclusively at Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth are among senior Trump administration officials reportedly residing at protected military installations or government accommodations because of security concerns. Other senior officials have also reportedly relocated following threats.
Although the circumstances differ and not every relocation has been attributed to Iran, these developments illustrate the increasingly serious security environment confronting American officials.
The Iranian regime’s threats against American personnel and officials are a reminder that Tehran’s activities are not exclusively an Israeli concern. The United States has its own security interests at stake. American political leaders must decide whether they will recognize this shared threat or allow domestic political divisions to obscure it.
A contrast that should not be overlooked…
Amid these developments, Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten has offered a strikingly different example. He announced that he had installed a mezuzah on the doorpost of his home as a gesture of solidarity with the Jewish community amid rising antisemitism in the Netherlands.
Speaking at a Kristallnacht commemoration at Amsterdam’s Portuguese Synagogue, he urged Jewish citizens not to abandon their country because of threats to their safety, declaring: “This is your home. The Netherlands is our shared home.”
His gesture recognizes an important truth: antisemitism is not simply a disagreement over Israel’s policies. It threatens the safety, dignity, and rightful place of Jewish citizens within their own countries. Jewish people should not have to conceal their identity, avoid their businesses, or fear public demonstrations because of their connection to Israel.
The same principle must apply in America and throughout the democratic world.
Israel’s contribution to the world
There is another reality that deserves recognition. While Israel is frequently portrayed internationally through the lens of conflict, its contributions to science, medicine, technology, and human welfare continue to benefit the international community.
A recent example is an experimental blood test developed by researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The research, published in Nature, reportedly detected early-stage breast cancer with 95% accuracy in the study population. Although further research and clinical validation are necessary, the findings are promising.
This is not an argument that scientific achievements should exempt Israel from criticism. Rather, it illustrates the contrast between the contributions Israel makes to the world and the increasingly hostile political environment in which those contributions are frequently overlooked.
Israel could choose to restrict the benefits of its scientific achievements to its own population. Instead, it continues to contribute to the welfare of people throughout the world, including in countries whose political establishments are often among its harshest critics.
Who is celebrating the changing political landscape?
Perhaps the most revealing reaction to the election results has come from Israel’s enemies themselves.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem openly celebrated the political setbacks suffered by Trump and Netanyahu. Referring to the American election results, he declared: “Today, we have a good opportunity. Trump was defeated in the elections.” He added: “Donald Trump’s project was defeated, and Benjamin Netanyahu is broken.” Qassem viewed the results as an opportunity for Iran and its regional allies to resist American pressure and undermine efforts to confront Tehran and disarm Hezbollah.
These remarks should not be dismissed. Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization with a direct interest in weakening both countries’ ability to confront Iran and its regional network. Its celebration does not establish that the American-Israeli alliance is collapsing, but it demonstrates that those committed to Israel’s destruction believe the changing political environment offers them an advantage.
While Washington and Jerusalem debate the future direction of their relationship, Tehran and Hezbollah are already calculating how they can benefit from the divisions.
The handwriting on the wall…
The developments following the elections should be viewed as a test of the American-Israeli alliance, but the implications extend considerably further. The relationship between the two countries is being challenged by disagreements over Iran, growing opposition to military cooperation, and political movements increasingly willing to question Israel’s legitimacy and its right to defend itself.
Yet perhaps the greatest danger is not any single political disagreement. It is the growing willingness of individuals, organizations, public officials, and ordinary citizens to accept accusations against Israel, Jews, and Zionism without demanding evidence or examining the facts.
History is being distorted, and in some instances deliberately rewritten. The Holocaust is denied or minimized. Israel is accused of virtually every evil imaginable, often without regard for the evidence, the actions of terrorist organizations, or the circumstances surrounding the conflict. Repeated allegations gradually become accepted as established facts, while those who question them are dismissed or attacked.
The familiar attitude of “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts!” is becoming increasingly apparent. We may dismiss such statements as stupidity, but Dietrich Bonhoeffer offered a far more sobering understanding: stupidity is not necessarily a lack of intelligence; it can be a surrender of it. His observations in Letters and Papers from Prison (1945) remain remarkably relevant. I encourage you to take a few minutes to listen to this discussion of Bonhoeffer’s understanding of why intelligent people become stupid.
The danger is not limited to Israel or the Jewish people. When public opinion abandons independent thought, when historical truth becomes subordinate to political narratives, and when accusations are accepted simply because they reinforce existing prejudices, the principles upon which democratic societies depend are placed at risk.
There is a responsibility that belongs to each of us. If something encountered on social media is offensive, speak out, but first consider what makes it offensive and why it matters. If public officials, whose positions and salaries are funded by the public, make egregious misrepresentations of facts, challenge them. If the preservation of historical truth matters, defend it openly. But do so without responding to offense with offense or allowing our own conduct to undermine the very principles we seek to protect. Our response must be firm, principled, and measured, even when confronting words and actions that are anything but.
The American-Israeli relationship has endured because it rests upon shared strategic interests, intelligence cooperation, technological development, democratic values, and the recognition that the security of the two countries is interconnected. Neither country can afford to assume that this relationship will sustain itself without continued commitment.
And neither can we afford to remain silent when antisemitism is normalized, historical truth is distorted, and unsubstantiated accusations are transformed into accepted public opinion.
The words attributed to Martin Niemöller remain a sobering warning:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
The elections have changed the political landscape. What follows will determine not only the future of the American-Israeli alliance, but also whether the principles of truth, freedom, security, and equal protection under the law will continue to be upheld.
Stand with Israel. Stand for historical truth. And, above all, do not surrender the responsibility to think critically, examine the facts, and speak out when truth is being sacrificed to prejudice.
Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.
Shabbat Shalom!
Marvin
