The Israeli leader said Turkey was 'infected by the Muslim Brotherhood' and warned the sales would upset the regional power balance hours before Trump's NATO summit departure
POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives for a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced opposition to the Trump administration’s sale of jet engines and potential sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey on Monday, saying on “Fox & Friends” that such moves “will upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority” and “America’s posture” in the region.
Netanyahu’s remarks came hours before President Donald Trump’s departure for a NATO summit in Turkey, on the sidelines of which Trump is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
“I don’t think [Turkey] should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Fox News.
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) July 6, 2026
He described Turkey as “infected by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme movement that hates America.”
Read more: https://t.co/gSW5VJLPfA pic.twitter.com/XKovNgVPJM
Last month, the Trump administration told Congress it was moving to sell more than $700 million of U.S.-made F-110 jet engines to the Turkish military and was reviewing Ankara’s eligibility for the F-35 program, in a potential change to U.S. sanctions which currently prevent Turkey from participating.
“I don’t think they should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets,” Netanyahu said on Monday, describing Turkey as “infected by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme movement that hates America.” He also pointed to recent comments by Erdoğan and Turkish ministers that Netanyahu characterized as “calling for the annihilation of Israel.”
Netanyahu’s comments echo concerns shared by a bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), who wrote to Trump last week warning that Erdoğan’s “constant and growing anti-Israel rhetoric” and ties to Iran make Turkey’s inclusion in the F-35 program unwise.
Harris told JI he’s both ‘a believer in the possibility of change’ and has ‘never been more worried in my adult lifetime than I am right now’
David Harris/book cover
David Harris spent more than three decades leading the American Jewish Committee, where he navigated crises facing the Jewish community and built bipartisan coalitions to advance the group’s mission of supporting Israel and Diaspora Jewry.
His book, Antisemitism: What Everyone Needs to Know, published by Oxford University Press last year, is Harris’ attempt to reach beyond the Jewish community — churches, classrooms and the “average New York Times reader.” His goal, he said, is to turn the “silent majority” into the “loud majority.”
Written in the shadow of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks in Israel, the book arrived at a moment of surging antisemitism in the U.S. and around the world. It traces antisemitism from its ancient roots through the Holocaust, the Soviet era and its recent resurgence — the explosion on college campuses and beyond after Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza.
Harris, who quipped that he retired “for about 30 seconds” after serving as AJC’s CEO from 1990–2022, sat down with Jewish Insider on Thursday to discuss the book at a moment in which he said he has “never been more worried” about antisemitism — yet also remains optimistic about the Jewish future.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Insider: Oxford University Press called you about writing this book in the fall of 2023 — weeks after the Oct. 7 attacks. You write that you were “honored but distressed by the need for such a book.” How much did the aftermath of the attacks reshape the book you thought you were going to write?
David Harris: That call was not directly related to Oct. 7, it was too close to the attacks to even have associated [the rise of] antisemitism with it. Antisemitism was surging [already] in general. They needed a book that would be easily accessible to a high number of people, to be able to reach the average New York Times reader. It was also meant for high school and college classrooms and churches. They understood the emerging problem and this was their contribution.
I wrote the book over the span of close to two years during the post-Oct. 7 period. Two things impacted me: the speed and virulence of which history was turned on its head. The worst day in Israeli and Jewish history since the end of World War II had before our eyes suddenly become directed at Jews, Zionists [and] friends of Israel who were suddenly seen as the perpetrators. Even with my understanding of the subject matter, I was stunned by how quickly and viciously it turned.
Number two is that I kept needing to add to the book because every day brought new events, insights and tragedies. At a certain point the publishers had to remind me this wasn’t a newspaper, we have to close the book at some point. There’s already room for a sequel, unfortunately.
JI: How are you reaching a wider, non-Jewish audience? Does the average American want to read about antisemitism? What has been their reaction to the book?
DH: Because Oxford University Press [is a major publisher], it’s not so easy for people who are otherwise ready to go after a book on antisemitism, such as the one that I wrote, to discredit or marginalize it with accusations like “Harris is a Zionist.” The publisher’s label is enormously important for the book’s credibility and reach.
Jews are also an important part of the audience. I learned from writing the book. Others can learn from reading the book.
I wrote this book with the hope that I’d be able to speak to non-Jewish audiences as well. So when one of the largest Methodist churches in the U.S., in Kansas City, with more than 30,000 worshippers a week, invited me to come speak, I was in my happy place. They invited me to come and could not have been more gracious. The response was very good. There was also a large gathering of interfaith leaders while I was in Kansas City. I want to reach well beyond the Jewish community because antisemitism is not a Jewish problem that can be solved by Jews. We need to engage good people, the silent majority, and help turn them into the loud majority.
It seems to me the larger goal, and this book is only a part of it, is to reach and mobilize the heart of America to understand the situation and the implications not just for Jews but for liberal values for all of us. It may begin with Jews, it never ends with Jews. The people burning the American flag are the very same people trampling on the Israeli flag and threatening Jews.
JI: Where do you see the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism — and has that line shifted since Oct. 7?
DH: For me, the line has not shifted. It’s just been more revealed. In the book I quote Natan Sharansky, one of my heroes, who wrote a number of years ago there’s “three Ds” to answer that question. When criticism of Israel evolves into delegitimization of Israel, demonizing of Israel and the use of double standards, it’s clear people cannot hide behind their defense of just being critical.
It’s a more elegantly linguistic way of being antisemitic while claiming you’re only anti-Zionist.
JI: The book documents the near-total disappearance of 850,000 Jews from Muslim-majority countries since 1948. Why does that history get so little mainstream attention, and why does it matter now?
DH: It’s a question I know all too well because I’m married to one of those 850,000 Jews and have been for 51 years. I’ve seen this issue play out through my wife’s experience post-expulsion from Libya in 1967 and I’ve seen it play out in my global diplomacy where every time I raise this issue I’m usually met by an eye roll — a complete lack of interest.
One reason is the Palestinians have done an exceptionally good job of making the world believe they are the perpetual refugees and have elevated victimhood to a whole new level. Those 850,000 Jews really determined from the get-go that they were not going to create lifelong victimhood, they were going to build new lives. And they did very successfully, so they didn’t become professional storytellers of their plight and loss.
But my wife says they are triple victims. First, they were expelled or forced to flee their country, their ancestral homeland. Two, the world looked away. Three, there is no trace of a 2,000-plus year history of the Jewish presence in Libyan history today. There is nothing, they’ve been completely wiped out. With the exception of Morocoo, that is true for most of these countries which these refugees had to flee.
JI: There’s a chapter detailing the campus antisemitism surge. Jewish groups told Jewish Insider two months after the Oct. 7 attacks that they were taking an engage-and-influence approach with diversity, equity and inclusion frameworks that have been used to exclude Jews from protected minority status on some campuses, which some attribute to the rise in antisemitism. Then in 2024, the same groups said they were reassessing their embrace of DEI. What is your approach? Is DEI fixable?
DH: For many years Jewish organizations relied on one weapon with campuses, so to speak. That was called reason, sitting down with the president or provost and reasoning with them to help them understand why antisemitism is unacceptable. Clearly, after Oct. 7 that dependence on reason was proven to be totally ineffective in most places.
What instead is more effective is taking the gloves off — lawfare. I particularly applaud the students at Harvard, Penn, George Washington University and other schools who took the lead here. While sitting on campuses, they were suing those campuses for violation of their rights. The organizations that got behind the students, groups like the Lawfare Project and Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and law firms that have stepped up pro bono, all deserve huge credit.
I retired for about 30 seconds after I stepped down from my position at AJC. I joined the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy because I thought they were really onto something regarding campuses that no one else that I knew was looking at carefully, long before Oct. 7, and that was foreign funding — where was it coming from? What was its intent? Why were universities in many cases violating American law by not reporting those gifts? Today it’s part of the national discourse to follow the money. These ecosystems directly and indirectly penetrated campuses at many levels, student organizations, faculty and staff, liberal arts, social sciences, Middle East study centers. They penetrated over many years in a very systematic and focused way.
The combination of deep research and the ability to get the research into policymakers, in the university world and the political world together with lawfare are the strategies that I think are most effective.
The students on campus are the frontline warriors of the Jewish people. They deserve the absolute backing of the American Jewish community.
JI: You led AJC for more than 30 years — you’ve seen Jewish organizational leadership up close across decades of crises. How do you assess how today’s Jewish leaders have responded to the post-Oct. 7 surge in antisemitism, and what would you tell them to do differently?
DH: Our community is several steps behind where it should be. We are at war. It’s a war designed to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Israel. It has fueled antisemitism and in many cases attacked and isolated Jews. Unlike in Israel, I don’t see the war mindset, plans and leaders here. I sometimes wonder, if the American Jewish community had been asked to organize D-Day, could the community have actually come together and created a single, comprehensive plan and followed it? I’m not sure. Based on the post-Oct. 7 situation here in this country, I worry we are not where we should be — where we need to be.
JI: You built AJC’s influence partly through bipartisan relationships. Is that model still viable, or does the current political environment force Jewish organizations to choose sides?
DH: It certainly elevates the importance of groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Democratic Majority for Israel. Support for Israel, in both political parties, can obviously no longer be taken for granted. That’s especially true now in the Democratic Party, all the more so after the primary election in New York earlier this week.
But there’s also an emerging cultural war inside the Republican Party. While I operated for nearly 50 years in the nonpartisan space, and positioned AJC as a nonpartisan organization with outreach at the highest level to both parties, today I would say it’s particularly important Jewish groups are operating inside multiple parties in a very partisan way.
It’s clear that we have enormous work to do in the Democratic Party. It was not long ago that [Sens.] Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the outliers when it came to Israel and the Middle East. Fast forward a couple of years and they are now the clear majority. Every Jewish organization looking for a Democrat from Washington lines up to invite Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). If he’s not available, they’re all baffled as to who else to invite from the contingent of Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
The question for the 501(c)(3) groups that are nonpartisan is, what do they bring to the table? In an earlier era, Jews were seen as a very important constituency with many voices, reach and impact. I’m not sure what the power equation is today for nonprofit Jewish organizations and why people in Washington should listen to them as they would have a few years ago.
The challenge for Jewish organizations is how to restore their indispensability to the national conversation. Posting on X, issuing statements, if no one is reading them or thinking about the messaging then what’s been accomplished? There is a huge amount of work to be done. I hope and pray the American Jewish community is up to the task.
JI: After immersing yourself in this history, are you more or less optimistic than when you started?
DH: I could not have spent 50 plus years in global Jewish advocacy without being a believer in the possibility of change for the better. I’ve seen it in my lifetime. I’ve seen the miracle of the rescue of Jews from the Soviet Union and the rescue of Jews from Ethiopia.
I also understand as a Jew I’m commanded to believe in the possibility of a better tomorrow and not to succumb to despair. Having said all of that, I would be totally dishonest if I didn’t tell you that I’ve never been more worried in my adult lifetime than I am right now.
The Jewish American Security Act addresses security threats, antisemitism on campus and online antisemitism
U.S. Senate
Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK)
Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) on Tuesday introduced the Jewish American Security Act, a broad new effort by the lawmakers, who co-chair the Senate antisemitism task force, to address antisemitism across multiple sectors of American society.
Similar legislation is also expected to be introduced in the House.
The bill, which has widespread support from all corners of Jewish leadership, including all major religious denominations and political organizations on both sides of the aisle, contains various provisions aimed at increasing security for Jewish communities through additional funding and federal resources.
Key provisions include: additional security assistance and improvements to security grant programs for Jewish communities; addressing antisemitism on college campuses through new federal oversight measures including a federal official to handle campus antisemitism; and addressing the spread of antisemitism online by requiring new transparency reports from social media companies, among a range of related steps in each category.
Rosen, leaders from the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and BBYO International and local leaders whose communities have been impacted by antisemitic violence in recent years spoke in favor of the bill at a Jewish Federations of North America press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. JFNA activists are on Capitol Hill this week meeting with more than 200 lawmakers to advocate for the bill and other legislation.
Rosen called the bill an “aggressive and comprehensive” response to antisemitism in the U.S. which will “help keep Jewish students safe, will help secure Jewish community institutions and we will help fight antisemitism online.”
She acknowledged that the path ahead is “not going to be easy” but emphasized that “it’s not an option for our government to not do more to fight antisemitism.”
Lankford emphasized the impacts of antisemitic violence on individual Jews and communities in a statement on the bill.
“These are not just numbers, these are real stories impacting real people. Jewish students being targeted on campuses. Synagogues being vandalized. People being attacked in the streets simply because of their faith and heritage,” Lankford said. “That is not who we are as a nation, and we unequivocally condemn antisemitism in all its forms. Every American deserves to live their faith freely. That is worth fighting for.”
Rosen told Jewish Insider later in the day that she and Lankford had been working to craft the bill for the past year, and had taken a range of input on the legislation. She said she and Lankford had learned from past legislative fights that to garner strong bipartisan support “you have to be very specific” and targeted in how legislation is crafted.
She said the new bill is focused on combating domestic antisemitism across three of the areas that have been epicenters of the recent rise in antisemitism since Oct. 7.
“I think it’s a good, solid bill and I believe that we crafted it in a way to get that good bipartisan support,” Rosen said. “We’re not going to solve every problem, but you have to start with something and work from there, and hopefully we build on that success.”
“Antisemitism we know is a canary in the coal mine. It starts with the Jews, it doesn’t end with the Jews,” she said.
“This bill that we wrote, we meant it to not be so prescriptive,” Rosen continued.” When we do things on college campuses, it’s going to help all students. When we do things in houses of worship, it’s not just for synagogues, it’s for all houses of worship. And when we start looking and analyze some of these algorithms online, it will probably inform us about some of the other algorithms, probably the same algorithms that are taking people down that hateful rabbit hole.”
Asked after the press conference about the path forward for the bill, and how advocates could avoid the same pitfalls that befell other efforts to combat antisemitism since Oct. 7, JFNA CEO Eric Fingerhut said that Jewish community groups took lessons from previous fights, particularly over the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would codify the federal government’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in evaluating campus antisemitism cases, but has failed to pass in several congressional sessions.
“We learned a lot from the experience with the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Of course we still support the IHRA definition, but we made a collective communal decision that there’s a separate bill that covers the IHRA definition, and that we hope that will continue to move through the process, but this is a separate issue,” Fingerhut told JI.
The bill does not explicitly endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which has proven a hurdle to previous efforts to combat antisemitism, but it notes that the Trump administration in 2019 implemented an executive order enforcing the IHRA definition on college campuses.
“This is the security of the Jewish community, and it has to be something that can be embraced on a bipartisan basis across the aisle,” he continued.
Fingerhut said that Rosen and other advocates made specific efforts to ensure the bill would not contain elements that would “turn it into a partisan effort” or “alienate people who have strong feelings about some of the issues that were in the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and so we hope we’ve accomplished that.”
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who co-chairs the House antisemitism task force and also spoke at the press conference, said that he and his House co-chairs are moving toward introducing companion legislation.
“This was a labor of … unquestionabl[e] importance and it has taken us quite some time to come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way,” Goldman acknowledged. “We worked for several months to fine tune this bill, so that it can be a targeted, productive, and effective concrete step to fighting antisemitism and rooting it out on the ground. We have worked very hard in a bipartisan way because none of these bills matter unless they become law.”
Goldman highlighted the “dramatic escalation” in antisemitic incidents in New York City in recent weeks, and said that simple condemnation after -the -fact is “too little, too late.”
The bill has widespread support among Jewish community groups and across all major religious denominations, including from the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Orthodox Union, JFNA, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Secure Community Network, The Rabbinical Assembly, Hadassah, Jewish Women International, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate, JCC Association of North America, the Nexus Project, Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis and Agudath Israel of America.
The Republican Jewish Coalition and Jewish Democratic Council of America are also both endorsing the bill, JI has learned.
The legislation follows a previous effort by Rosen and Lankford, and counterparts in the House, to introduce a comprehensive package of antisemitism legislation in the past Congress, the Countering Antisemitism Act, which faced opposition from senior lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and ultimately did not advance.
The new bill is somewhat more limited than that prior effort, and builds on or combines other efforts that lawmakers have advanced individually, though certain provisions could still face objections from various corners.
Mirroring efforts currently underway in the 2027 government funding process, the legislation would authorize $1 billion annually for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program — though that funding would still have to be approved annually through the appropriations process even if this bill passes.
It also includes various provisions aimed at reforming NSGP management, including requiring that the Federal Emergency Management Agency provide sufficient staffing to “streamline the application process and post-approval process for a grant,” provide additional technical assistance to grantees and quickly disburse funds under the program, within 90 days of when grantees submit reimbursement requests.
At the outset of the Trump administration, grant reimbursements were paused for a significant period as the administration reviewed all Department of Homeland Security grant programs.
It requires that applications for the program open no later than 90 days after Congress passes funding for the program, and that each state publicize a timeline to submit applications, both of which were issues during the 2025 grant cycle.
Addressing repeated congressional complaints during the second Trump term that lawmakers have not received adequate information about or communication from the administration about the grant program, the legislation would codify a requirement that FEMA provide Congress with a list of grant awards and amounts at least a week before such grants are publicized. It would also release to the public information about grant acceptances and rejections and the criteria for such decisions.
Responding to concerns about new conditions imposed on applicants relating to cooperation with immigration authorities and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programming, the bill bars any conditions or terms that would disadvantage applicants or grant recipients based on their “religious, political, or ideological affiliation.”
The bill would modify current grant rules to allow nonprofits to use NSGP funding to pay for contracted or in-house security personnel.
At the press conference, Rosen called the provisions “comprehensive and long overdue reforms to this program that will actually make sure that it works for our at-risk institutions.”
And it would require the intelligence community to produce annual assessments on domestic and transnational antisemitic violent extremism.
The legislation would additionally codify a version of a program established in the 2026 Department of Justice funding bill that would allow the DOJ to provide grants to state and local law enforcement for the purpose of protecting religious institutions and addressing religious-based hate crimes.
In the education space, the bill would establish an antisemitism coordinator within the Department of Education, whose responsibilities would include working to ensure that antisemitism complaints that have been pending with the department’s Office for Civil Rights for more than 180 days are resolved promptly.
It would also mandate that any schools receiving federal funding designate a coordinator for addressing discrimination complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and establish a uniform grievance procedure and provide support mechanisms for such complaints. The effort mirrors policies currently in place for sex-based discrimination, under Title IX.
To improve visibility into the volume of antisemitic activity on college campuses, the legislation would change federal reporting procedures for hate crimes on college campuses, requiring that annual public campus crime reports disaggregate such offenses based on the bias category, such as antisemitism, that motivated them.
It also requires the Department of Education to offer trainings for schools on their Title VI responsibilities and to create an online database on Title VI best practices and recommendations. It requires schools to publicize educational materials about students’ Title VI rights both online and in person.
Rosen told JI that existing mechanisms have been “woefully inadequate to protect our students.”
Addressing antisemitism online, the bill requires platforms with more than 50 million unique monthly American users to submit to the Federal Trade Commission and to share publicly a transparency report on their “content moderation practices and efforts to detect, remove, limit the visibility of, and prevent the amplification of antisemitic content” on their platform, twice each year.
That report would include details on the specific review mechanisms and content moderation tools the platforms use; the total number of pieces of content on the platform that were determined to violate their policies on antisemitism and what action the platforms took; the amount of antisemitic content that reached more than 100 viewers or was promoted by the platform’s algorithms; the percentage of antisemitic content that violated the platforms’ policies but remained online; and details on accounts that were suspended or removed for sharing antisemitic content.
Platforms that do not comply with these reporting requirements would be subject to penalties by the FTC.
The administration would also be required to report to Congress on antisemitism online that has been linked to offline violence.
Goldman said that such transparency provisions would serve as a “tremendous deterrent.”
“If these social media companies need to disclose how much money they’re making off of antisemitic content, that’s going to be a deterrent. That is bad PR. And so it is critically important that we take this first step,” Goldman said. “It doesn’t violate the First Amendment, it doesn’t violate Section 230. It is purely bringing some transparency.”
Rosen emphasized that social media has been an “accelerant” and driver of antisemitism, making such content easier to access. She said the legislation would not compel speech or action by the platforms, but would provide transparency into how algorithms may be driving people toward hate and violence, and allow better analysis and understanding of the problem.
Fingerhut told JI that recent antisemitic attacks may also play a role in demonstrating to lawmakers the need for the legislation to address antisemitism and protect the Jewish community.
Several speakers also made note at the press conference of the attack on Monday at the Islamic Center in San Diego, highlighting the threats to religious communities broadly which can benefit from the NSGP funding.
‘The keffiyeh wasn’t a slip. It was the point. And it’s disgraceful,’ an Eric Adams advisor said
Mayor Zohran Mamdani/X
Screenshot
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani drew criticism on Thursday from several prominent Jewish New Yorkers for releasing a social media video on rent regulation hearings that prominently featured a public employee sporting a keffiyeh, a checkered scarf associated with the Palestinian cause.
The video, which runs just over one minute long and doesn’t touch on Middle East issues, promotes a new door-to-door outreach campaign to encourage participation in upcoming meetings of the Rent Guidelines Board.
In it, one of staffers featured in the video, Mohamed Alharbi — deputy borough director of the newly established Mayor’s Office of Mass Engagement — wears a keffiyeh over his shoulders, visible for all but a few moments of the clip.
“Shameful video. The anti-Zionist messaging isn’t subtle — it fuels a broader climate that emboldens antisemitism,” wrote Todd Richman, a veteran Democratic Party operative and co-founder of Democratic Majority for Israel, highlighting the recent spike in hate crimes targeting Jewish New Yorkers. “Don’t ignore the pattern. This rhetoric has real consequences. The Mayor should take this down immediately.”
Benny Polatseck, who ran the creative communications team for former Mayor Eric Adams, also raised concerns.
“The keffiyeh wasn’t a slip. It was the point. And it’s disgraceful,” Polatseck asserted. “We would never have produced a video targeting a community in our city.”
Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager and major political donor in New York, questioned the entire initiative.
“Imagine if some guy wearing a terror Schmatta comes to your home unannounced and knocks on your door asking you a bunch of personal questions and demanding you appear at a government struggle session,” he tweeted, using a Yiddish word for rag.
The black-and-white patterned keffiyeh was the invention of English-born Lt. Gen. John Glubb, leader of the Arab Legion that seized the West Bank in 1948. Palestinian Liberation Organization head Yasser Arafat and terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled later popularized the garment as a political symbol in the 1970s.
The Mamdani administration did not respond to questions about the decision to feature a public servant displaying a political symbol in a publicly financed video.
Plus, breaking down the Bibi-Trump meeting
Ali Altunkaya/Anadolu via Getty Images
Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal speaks on the second day of the 17th Al Jazeera Forum held in Doha, Qatar on February 8, 2026.
👋 Good Thursday morning!
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we cover yesterday’s White House meeting between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and report on the ouster of Carrie Prejean Boller from the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission following her comments earlier this week on Israel and antisemitism. We report on Sen. Ted Budd’s call for Qatar to extradite Hamas operative Khaled Mashaal to the U.S., and interview Jason Friedman about his run for Congress in Illinois’ 7th Congressional District. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Bill Ackman, Rosaura Bagolie and Beejhy Barhany.
Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by JI Executive Editor Melissa Weiss and Israel Editor Tamara Zieve, with assists from Danielle Cohen-Kanik and Marc Rod. Have a tip? Email us here.
What We’re Watching
- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is heading back to Israel today following yesterday’s meeting with President Donald Trump. More below.
- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding its confirmation hearing for Jeremy Carl to be assistant secretary of state for international organizations. Carl, who was born to a Jewish family and now identifies as Christian, has expressed a range of derogatory views about Jews, including in a 2024 interview in which he said that “Jews have often loved to play the victim rather than accept that they are participants in history.” Read Jewish Insider’s past reporting on Carl’s comments here.
- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is meeting today with Zach Shemper, president of Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Miss., which suffered significant damage in an arson attack last month. The two are expected to discuss the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which provided the congregation with security cameras that helped catch the perpetrator, and the Pray Safe Act.
- In Los Angeles, Sinai Temple and Fabric are co-hosting a daylong summit focused on building bridges within the sports community. Lisa Leslie, Eddy Curry and Tamir Goodman are among those slated to appear at the gathering.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S LAHAV HARKOV
At first glance, President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s nearly three-hour meeting at the White House on Wednesday appeared to end without any clear accomplishments.
Instead of the freewheeling question-and-answer sessions with media in the Oval Office and formal press conferences that followed most of Trump and Netanyahu’s previous six meetings since Trump returned to the White House, came a laconic statement from Netanyahu’s office about Israel’s security needs and a Truth Social post from Trump that was staid by the president’s standards.
Trump wrote that he “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a deal can be consummated. If I can, I let the Prime Minister know that will be a preference.” However, the president warned that last time Iran decided against making a deal, “that did not work out well for them,” and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear sites.
However, Trump and Netanyahu were similarly silent about their meeting in April 2025 — their last in-person meeting before the joint strike in Iran two months later.
Behind the scenes, the main topic of conversation between the two leaders yesterday appeared to focus on options for action if Iran does not agree to a deal.
The lack of press around the meeting was because Netanyahu wanted to keep a relatively low profile and show deference to Trump, since a strike on Iran — should one occur — would be led by the U.S., an Israeli source said.
The Israeli side is very skeptical that any deal can be reached between the U.S. and Iran, with Trump saying publicly that a good deal would mean “no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles,” and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying the ballistic missile issue is a nonstarter for Tehran.
DOUBLING DOWN
Two Trump religious liberty appointees join forces in anti-Israel push after antisemitism hearing

Conservative activist Carrie Prejean Boller was removed from the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the chair of the commission, announced on Wednesday. The news came two days after the commission held its first public hearing on antisemitism, which turned contentious when Prejean Boller minimized charges of antisemitism leveled against other public figures and pressed Jewish witnesses about whether they would consider her antisemitic for not being a Zionist and for believing Jews killed Jesus, Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch reports.
Doubling down: Prejean Boller found an ally who has stood by her this week and who remains on the commission’s advisory board: Sameerah Munshi, a Muslim activist who first gained a public profile in the summer of 2023, when she testified at a Montgomery County, Md., school board hearing against the inclusion of LGBTQ-related material in elementary school classes. The two women — both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump — have now joined together as the anti-Israel wing of the commission. Both of them have publicly defended antisemitic commentator Candace Owens, who uses conspiracy-laden language to discuss Jews and Israel. In a shared Instagram post last week, Prejean Boller and Munshi pointed fingers at a shadowy cabal that they blame for both the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the alleged crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.




































































































Continue with Google
Continue with Apple