Katz: IDF to establish security zone 20 miles deep into Lebanon

JNS Staff

Israel Defense Forces soldiers during operations in Southern Lebanon, March 2026. Credit: IDF.

Gavin Newsom and the Democrats’ Israel problem

Jonathan S. Tobin

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California speaks at the Networth and Chill podcast at the Vox Media Podcast Stage at SXSW in Austin, Texas, on March 15, 2026. Photo by Rick Kern/Getty Images for Vox Media.

For Democrats who are already immersed in the run-up to the 2028 presidential election, Israel isn’t so much a country in the Middle East as it is a landmine. California Gov. Gavin Newsom provided a classic example earlier this month of how hard it is to navigate the issue for politicians who want the support of both pro- and anti-Israel voters.

Newsom set off something of an explosion when, while promoting his autobiography Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery, written to promote his presidential prospects. At a Los Angeles event, he told the hosts of the Pod Save America left-wing podcast that those who are smearing Israel as an apartheid state are doing so “appropriately.” In the same interview, he spoke of considering supporting a ban on military aid to the Jewish state, even in the midst of war, and implied that he thought that Israel was pushing the United States into a war with Iran in which it had no stake.

When faced with strong and immediate pushback from pro-Israel Democrats over his seeming willingness to join the growing ranks of anti-Zionists who help fuel antisemitism with blood libels about Israel, Newsom predictably backed down.

Pro-Israel, but anti-Netanyahu?

In a fawning interview with the liberal Politico website, Newsom said that he regretted the statement. What he really meant was that he agreed with New York Times columnist and inveterate Israel-basher Thomas L. Friedman, whom, he said, has written that Israel is heading toward apartheid under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his right-wing and religious supporters who oppose a two-state solution. While refusing to label himself as a “Zionist”—a word that has become a term of abuse on the political left—Newsom still claimed to “revere” Israel and decreed that he was “proud” to support it.

That pleased some on the left, such as Forward columnist Rob Eshman, who claimed that this meant that the governor wasn’t waffling on Israel but was actually voicing “sensible ideas” about the Middle East. Among the dwindling ranks of so-called “liberal Zionists” who join in the demonizing of the government (elected by Israeli citizens) but wish to distinguish themselves from those treating support for even the idea of a Jewish state, that’s good enough.

Newsom’s walk-back of his statement regarding the “apartheid” slur angered many others on the left, who felt that the politician was betraying them. Far-left actor/anti-Israel activist Mark Ruffalo claimed to know that the governor had “said what you meant” in the first place. “I don’t know what billionaire got in your ear, but it’s not working for you. This is not how you are going to win. It’s apartheid, and it’s a genocide!”

The question is: Who does Newsom think has a better idea of where Democratic voters are these days—those donors who likely did get in his ear about calling Israel an “apartheid” state or people like Ruffalo who want to see it destroyed?

According to the annual Gallup poll on the subject, published last month, the overwhelming majority of those identifying as Democrats oppose the Jewish state. Under those circumstances, positioning oneself as an unabashed supporter of Israel seems like a political death wish. But going all the way over to the other side and joining those who slander it and support its destruction is also problematic.

Will Democrats tilt farther to the left?

That’s especially true for those who seek to run in what is left of the “moderate” lane in 2028 that was occupied by Hillary Clinton in 2016, and by Joe Biden 2020 and 2024 (before he was deposed because of his mental incapacity). 2028 might be the year when the left wing of the party, led in the past by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), finally takes control.

But despite the way those who share their views on both Israel and other issues seem to dominate the liberal media and popular culture, a lot of Democrats who matter still fear nominating someone in the mold of Sanders, though someone much younger—for example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). They believe that would lead to electoral disaster. That’s why those who are perceived as less extreme, like Newsom, are still broadly favored by most officeholders and the donor class. And among the latter are a great many large Democratic Party donors who still remain supportive of Israel—or at least opposed to the anti-Zionist and antisemitic left.

The 2028 Democratic presidential primaries are two full years from now, so guessing which issues and stands will appeal to voters is a somewhat hazardous task. Nevertheless, the maneuvering of leading Democrats right now with respect to Israel is part of a process that has been building for years. Part of it is rooted in the way toxic left-wing ideas like critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism, that among other things falsely labels Israelis and Jews as “white” oppressors, have become a new orthodoxy among Democrats. Mixed in with it is the way hatred for President Donald Trump and opposition to virtually everything he does has become a litmus test for party loyalty.

Anti-Trump means anti-Israel

In this way, rather than Trump’s historic support for Israel being something on which the majority of Americans could agree, it has instead become just one more example of something Democrats respond to on a knee-jerk basis.

Pro-Israel Democrats were clearly uncomfortable when Trump accomplished measures during his first term that they would have cheered had a president of their party done them, such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 or brokering the 2020 Abraham Accords. Still, they didn’t actively oppose them. In his second term, many of their opinion leaders and voters have embraced the blood libels about the Jewish state committing “genocide” in Gaza, being an “apartheid” state, and now, the claim that Israel has dragged America into a war with Iran.

At this point, backing for the Jewish state among Democrats has become, as Newsom demonstrated, a theoretical exercise. They’re ready to support an Israel in sync with liberal Democratic policy priorities—meaning, support for a Palestinian state and making deals with Iran. That’s an Israel, however, that doesn’t really exist.

After the once-popular Oslo Accords exploded into the terrorist war of attrition known as the Second Intifada (2000-05), then the disengagement from Gaza, and then the Hamas-led atrocities on Oct. 7, 2023, support for a Palestinian state among Israelis is limited to a small percentage of die-hard leftists. Even fewer Jewish Israelis oppose the current war in Iran, with 93% backing it—a total that reflects an overwhelming majority of even those who will vote against Netanyahu in the next election.

Simply put, there is a broad consensus within Israel that stretches from left to right on these issues. That consensus views a Palestinian state, such as the one that existed in Gaza prior to Oct. 7 in all but name, as an invitation to future slaughter and perpetual war. It also understands that the only option available to them with respect to Iran, as long as it is governed by fanatical Islamist theocrats, is conflict.

Seen from that perspective, it makes even those Democrats who claim to be supporters of Israel, though bitterly opposed to its government, like Newsom or even Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, not merely out of touch with the realities of Israeli politics but also with their own voters. Such candidates may try to finesse the issue, as Newsom and Shapiro are trying to do, by declaring their support for Israel while avowing perpetual opposition to Netanyahu and Trump. But even if you take Netanyahu out of the equation, there is no conceivable government that could emerge from the next Israeli election that would have policies on two states or Iran that any conceivable Democrat could support. And as far as the left-wing base of the Democratic Party is concerned, all Israelis and their American supporters—be they Jewish or Christian evangelicals—are backers of the mythical “genocide” and “apartheid.”

And that is why Israel is a land mine that Democratic presidential contenders understand can blow up their ability to reach their party’s activists who are the key to winning primaries and the nomination.

The two parties move in different directions

It’s true that there is also a vocal anti-Israel and increasingly antisemitic faction on the right that is unhappy with Trump’s pro-Israel policies. But it is clearly a minority with most Republicans, including the MAGA base. Most are enthusiastic supporters of Israel and of Trump’s stands, including the current war on Iran. And that has also placed Vice President JD Vance, the putative champion of the Tucker Carlson anti-Israel wing of the party, in a very uncomfortable position. He and his staff are reduced to leaking their unhappiness with Netanyahu, as well as their hopes about brokering a deal with Iran, to left-wing publications like Axios.

The anti-Israel right may think that it can reverse the GOP’s pro-Israel stance if Vance wins the presidency in 2028. But their problem is that unlike the situation on the other side of the aisle, the Veep’s coolness to Israel and the conflict with Iran is making that prospect far less of an inevitable occurrence than it seemed just a few months ago.

But for Democrats, the trend is moving in the opposite direction.

The best that supporters of Israel can hope for from a Democratic presidential candidate going forward is exactly the sort of dodge Newsom has just demonstrated—by talking out of both sides of his mouth. He signaled acquiescence to the “apartheid” and “genocide” blood libels while saying he supports a mythical Israel that has, like the few remaining liberal Zionists, learned nothing from Oslo, the events of Oct. 7, or Iran’s role in fomenting terror and war. Some “moderate” Democrats may think that trying to thread the needle in this way will allow them to be acceptable to both left-wingers and Jewish donors. Unfortunately, that is a sham that increasingly fewer opponents or supporters of Israel will accept.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Why Do Democrats Refuse to Accept That Lebanon Still Supports Hezbollah?

Eric Bordenkircher

Smoke rises after an Israeli strike, amid escalating hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, as the US-Israeli conflict with Iran continues, in southern Lebanon, March 28, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is working overtime to craft a US foreign policy in the Middle East defined by flawed thinking. The latest example comes from Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

On the afternoon of March 21, the left-wing senator felt compelled to share her bewildering thoughts on X, and tweeted:

Pay Attention to Lebanon.

Trump and Netanyahu started a regional war in the Middle East, creating a humanitarian disaster.                      

And now, the Israeli army has killed over 1,000 people in Lebanon — about 20% of them are kids.

Congress should not bankroll this escalating war of choice.

For anyone with knowledge about Lebanon, the Middle East, and US foreign policy in the region, the senator’s words are baffling, if not insulting. 

Warren’s crude attempt to curry opposition to Israeli self-defense reveals her bizarre rationalization and confused thinking. In her bizarro world, a country that strung along and lied to the US government while working to extort additional US tax dollars is considered a victim. 

If the former Democratic presidential candidate had been paying attention to Lebanon prior to March 21, she would have acknowledged that Lebanon has refused to stop Hezbollah from committing terror attacks against Israelis — and exporting its terror globally — and that a decades-old US policy (which she has never vocally and explicitly opposed) has been an utter failure.

Since 2006, the US government has bankrolled the “rebuilding” of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to the tune of billions of US tax dollars. Repeated incidents demonstrate that all the arming, training, and even paying the salaries of some soldiers did nothing to diminish the hollowness of the institution.

The latest example of LAF ineffectiveness occurred on March 2. Hezbollah launched its most recent unprovoked attack on Israel. It was an attack that the LAF via the Lebanese government told US authorities (barely two months ago) could not happen.

Lebanese authorities asserted that the area extending north from the Israeli-Lebanese border to the Litani River was clear of Hezbollah and its arms.

In addition to this falsehood, Lebanese authorities requested more funding to continue disarming Hezbollah.

The US and allies obliged by scheduling a LAF funding conference on March 5 in Paris. But the events of March 2 demonstrated that Lebanon either cannot — or will not — do what it has promised the international community in return for billions in aid. Fortunately for American taxpayers, the outbreak of violence in the region postponed the conference.

If the senior senator from Massachusetts had been paying attention to Lebanon prior to March 21, she would have also acknowledged the futility of diplomacy until conditions on the ground change.

The Biden-mediated ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon (which began on November 27, 2024) proved to be naïve and premature. The Lebanese state (once again) failed to keep its word by bringing the militia and terrorist group to heel (even in a limited area). Despite its considerable degradation, Hezbollah retained its weapons and maximalist goal — the destruction of Israel.

The Left needs to understand that right now, anything with the Lebanese government’s name on it is worth as much as the Lebanese pound — next to nothing. Suspending fighting is tantamount to giving Hezbollah the opportunity to regroup and rearm.   

The former Democratic presidential candidate indulges in denying agency to Israel and America’s enemies. Senator Warren ignores that the humanitarian disaster engulfing Lebanon is self-inflicted. Hezbollah and its supporters invited it. The Lebanese government did not prevent it, despite having 15 months to disarm Hezbollah. Instead, it dragged its feet, looking for any excuse to delay the job.   

What makes Warren’s tweet more insufferable is that many of the causalities and the parents of deceased children she speaks of are supporters of Hezbollah and its allies. They put themselves and their families in danger. They repeatedly voted for them in municipal and parliamentary elections (many will do it again), and celebrate the culture of “resistance.”

Segments of the now-displaced population never divulged the whereabouts of Hezbollah’s munitions to the state, or the population actively cooperated in concealing them. Is one expected to believe that the posters of former Hezbollah soldiers and its allies that line many roads in southern Lebanon are just decorative?

Senator Warren must also realize that Iran and its proxies chose to create a regional war. Iran chose to attack its Arab and Turkish neighbors, embassies, and international shipping. Hezbollah chose to attack Israel — at the direction of Iran.   

But in the progressive mindset of Senator Warren, these are secondary or insignificant issues. Lebanon’s failures, irresponsibility, and extortion are forgivable or forgettable.  

As witnessed by the tweet, her obsession with blaming Israel and the US is all-consuming; it defies logic and understanding. For the self-proclaimed progressive, restraining Israel is the priority. Labeling Israel the aggressor and US complicity is the norm. Denying Israel funding is the objective. Will any of this resolve the conflict? The senator has no real answer.  

Sadly, Senator Warren’s words and thoughts are not unprecedented, let alone uncommon. Progressives in the House and Senate share similar views. As the influence of the progressive wing in the Democratic party grows regarding foreign policy matters, understanding Senator Warren’s warped mind provides a glimpse of what to expect from the future of the party. 

Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development.

Yousef Al Otaiba, zdjęcie Departamentu Stanu autorstwa Freddie’ego Everetta, domena publiczna

Ambasador ZEA ostrzega USA

Hugh Fitzgerald

Państwa arabskie Zatoki Perskiej coraz bardziej obawiają się, że Amerykanie mogą zakończyć wojnę z Iranem, zanim kraj ten zostanie tak gruntownie osłabiony, by przez bardzo długi czas nie był w stanie ponownie zagrozić swoim sąsiadom. Państwa te stały się celem irańskich rakiet balistycznych i dronów, które spowodowały zniszczenia infrastruktury liczone w dziesiątkach miliardów dolarów. Sam Katar szacuje koszty napraw szkód wyrządzonych przez Iran na co najmniej 20 miliardów dolarów. Zjednoczone Emiraty Arabskie były celem większej liczby irańskich rakiet i dronów niż Izrael.

Państwa arabskie Zatoki naciskają na Amerykanów, aby kontynuowali wojnę do momentu całkowitego zniszczenia potencjału militarnego Iranu. Wyraziły również swoje oburzenie wobec innych członków Ligi Arabskiej — zwłaszcza Egiptu — za brak jednoznacznego potępienia Iranu i pełnej solidarności z państwami Zatoki. Teraz ambasador ZEA w USA przedstawił wizję swojego kraju dotyczącą tego, jak powinien wyglądać pokój z Iranem, w artykule opublikowanym w „Wall Street Journal”. Więcej na temat jego poglądów można znaleźć tutaj: „Ambasador ZEA w USA ostrzega przed zbyt wczesnym zakończeniem wojny z Iranem”, Jerusalem Post, 25 marca 2026:

Ambasador Zjednoczonych Emiratów Arabskich w Stanach Zjednoczonych, Yousef Al Otaiba, argumentował w artykule opinii opublikowanym w środę w „Wall Street Journal”, że wojna z Iranem powinna zakończyć się w sposób eliminujący długoterminowe zagrożenie ze strony Teheranu dla regionu. Przekaz ten pojawił się w momencie, gdy państwa Zatoki nasiliły publiczne ostrzeżenia dotyczące irańskich ataków na infrastrukturę cywilną i energetyczną.

W artykule zatytułowanym „ZEA przeciwstawiają się Iranowi” Al Otaiba napisał, że obecna wojna wymaga rozstrzygnięcia, które obejmie pełen zakres zagrożenia ze strony Islamskiej Republiki. Tekst ukazał się w środę po południu na stronach opinii „WSJ”.

Artykuł Al Otaiby pojawił się w momencie narastających sygnałów, że kluczowe państwa Zatoki przyjmują coraz twardsze publiczne stanowisko wobec Teheranu po tygodniach regionalnej eskalacji związanej z wojną USA i Izraela z Iranem.

Agencja Reuters poinformowała w środę, że państwa arabskie Zatoki powiedziały Radzie Praw Człowieka ONZ, iż ataki irańskich rakiet i dronów stanowią „egzystencjalne zagrożenie”, a przedstawiciele Kuwejtu i ZEA oskarżyli Iran o dążenie do destabilizacji porządku międzynarodowego poprzez terror i ekspansjonizm….

W tygodniu poprzedzającym publikację artykułu Otaiby Trump wypowiedział się w sposób sugerujący, że chciałby ogłosić zwycięstwo i zakończyć wojnę. Tekst Otaiby był częścią wysiłków państw Zatoki, aby ostrzec Amerykanów przed zakończeniem działań zbrojnych, zanim Iran utraci zdolność do odpowiedzi poprzez ataki na cele w regionie Zatoki.

W ciągu niespełna miesiąca ataki Iranu na wszystkich jego arabskich sąsiadów — zwłaszcza ZEA, Katar, Arabię Saudyjską i Kuwejt — popchnęły je ku cichemu sojuszowi z Izraelem. Gdy Siły Obronne Izraela niszczą w Iranie fabrykę rakiet balistycznych lub magazyn z 200 pociskami, zwiększają bezpieczeństwo nie tylko własne, lecz także państw Zatoki, które stały się celem irańskich ataków. Gdy IDF eliminuje dowódców Korpusu Strażników Rewolucji Islamskiej lub ponownie uderza w zakład wzbogacania uranu znajdujący się głęboko pod ziemią w Fordow, Natanz czy Isfahanie, ogranicza obecne i przyszłe możliwości Iranu do szkodzenia państwom Zatoki.

Państwa arabskie Zatoki zaczęły dostrzegać, że Izrael jest „najsilniejszym wrogiem” Islamskiej Republiki, a tym samym ich nieformalnym sojusznikiem. Nie chcą już osłabiać Izraela — przeciwnie, zależy im na jego sile. To Izrael ma zapewnić, że Islamska Republika nie będzie w stanie ponownie się uzbroić i zagrozić sąsiadom; to Izrael pomoże usunąć „klątwę” Hezbollahu z Libanu; to Izrael może wesprzeć monarchie Zatoki w powstrzymywaniu Bractwa Muzułmańskiego, które stanowi stałe zagrożenie dla ich istnienia. ZEA, Arabia Saudyjska, Kuwejt, a nawet Katar — państwo, które przez lata wspierało Hamas i udzielało schronienia jego przywódcom — postrzegają dziś Izrael jako niezbędną siłę stabilizującą w regionie. Jeszcze rok temu — kto by pomyślał?

Link do oryginału: https://jihadwatch.org/2026/03/uaes-ambassador-to-the-u-s-issues-a-warning

Jihad Watch, 28 marca 2026