Palestinian Arab rioters who participated on Friday in violent “March of the Return” riots near the Gaza border held up signs thanking Israeli-American Natalie Portman, Channel 10 News reported.

“Occupied and besieged Gaza appreciates your moral stance. Thank you Natalie Portman,” the sign read.

Portman announced last week that she would refuse to come to Israel to receive the Genesis Prize from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu due to what she called “the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities”.

"I chose not to attend because I did not want to appear as endorsing Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony," said Portman. "By the same token, I am not part of the BDS movement and do not endorse it."

"Like many Israelis and Jews around the world, I can be critical of the leadership in Israel without wanting to boycott the entire nation. I treasure my Israeli friends and family, Israeli food, books, art, cinema, and dance. Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power," the actress added.

She did not explain what she was referring to by "atrocities."

The Likud party responded to Portman's decision, labelling her a “hypocrite” and adding, "Natalie Portman talks about democracy, but she supported the V15 organization, which attempted, via foreign funding, to skew Israel's democratic elections."

"Portman talks about human rights, but she participates in festivals in countries which censor videos and whose human rights record is far behind that of Israel. No excuse will help - Portman simply refuses to accept the decision of Israel's citizens," said the Likud.

Likud MK Oren Hazan called on Interior Minister Aryeh Deri (Shas) to strip Portman of her Israeli citizenship.

"[She is] a Jewish Israeli, who on the one hand cynically uses her birthplace to advance her career and on the other is proud of the fact that she managed to avoid enlisting in the IDF. She's an actress, but she is unworthy of any honor in the State of Israel....She...has no real connection to the State."

(Arutz Sheva’s North American desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)</s>Natalie Portman, the Israeli-born American-Oscar winning actress, hit Israel below the belt last Thursday. The 36-year-old actress’s aggression was shocking to many since she has made a big deal of her Israeli roots over the years.

For instance, in 2015 she gave an interview to the Hollywood Reporter. As a new resident of Paris, Portman was asked whether she “was shaken” by the massacre of journalists at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper. Looking her interviewer straight in the eye, she said roughly, “Listen, I’m from Israel.”

In other words, Portman, who moved with her family to the U.S. when she was 3, appropriated the toughness Israelis have been forced to cultivate in the face of their neighbors’ continuous aggression to cultivate a tough-girl image of herself.

Given the use Portman routinely makes of her Israeli pedigree, many were astounded that Portman chose the occasion of Israel’s 70th Independence Day last Thursday to pounce on Israel.

Last November, Portman agreed to receive the Genesis Prize. The prize, which Time magazine dubbed the “Jewish Nobel,” was established five years ago by Russian-Israeli philanthropists with a $100 million endowment. The declared purpose of the prize, which gives the winner a million dollars to spend on the charities of his or her choice, is “to celebrate Jewish achievement and contribution to society.”

The unstated but well-understood goal of the prize foundation, which is dominated by American Jews, is to convince Jewish celebrities identified with the left to support Israel publicly. Previous winners include former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg; actor Michael Douglas, violinist Itzhak Perlman; and British sculptor and refugee rights advocate Anish Kapoor. This year, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is receiving a lifetime achievement award.

Winners of the Genesis Prize come to Jerusalem for a glamorous ceremony, jointly sponsored by the Prime Minister’s office and the Jewish Agency for Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel hands the winner the prize.

When she agreed to receive the prize last November, Portman sounded enthusiastic. She said, “I am deeply touched and humbled by this honor.

“I am proud of my Israeli roots and Jewish heritage; they are crucial parts of who I am. It is such a privilege to be counted among the outstanding Laureates whom I admire so much. I express my heartfelt gratitude to the Genesis Prize Foundation, and look forward to using the global platform it provides to make a difference in the lives of women in Israel and beyond.”

The following month, Israeli billionaire philanthropist Morris Kahn announced that he would donate an additional million dollars to Portman’s prize money.

In the six months that passed since her selection was announced, Portman gave no indication that she was reconsidering her willingness to accept the award.

But then, last Thursday, on Israel’s Independence Day, Portman’s representative told the Genesis Prize Foundation, “Recent events in Israel have been extremely distressing to her and she does not feel comfortable participating in any public events in Israel.” Portman’s representative added that “she cannot in good conscience move forward with the ceremony.”

Since Portman did not bother mentioning which “recent events” caused her such “extreme distress,” Israeli politicians drew their own conclusions. Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan and Minister of Cultural Affairs Miri Regev both assumed that Portman was condemning Israel for defending its border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Regev reacted to Portman’s move by saying she “fell like a ripe fruit into the hands of BDS supporters.” BDS, which stands for “boycott, divestment, and sanctions,” is a movement spearheaded by the PLO and advanced by Muslim and leftist groups throughout the West. It is a multifaceted campaign against Israel and its supporters. It involves ostracizing Israel’s supporters and delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist while harming its economy.

Erdan wrote Portman an open letter in which he invited her to visit Israel’s border with Gaza to see what Israel is up against. Erdan noted that her statement was being used by the “anti-Semitic BDS campaign … to advance its ends.”

Erdan was right. Immediately after Portman’s move became public, BDS activists and groups social media organs whooped in triumph, declaring Portman had abandoned Israel and embraced BDS.

Portman may have been concerned that her announcement, and the Israeli and BDS reactions, could harm her image. How can she continue to claim pride in her Israeli “toughness” if she thinks that Israel is evil?

Taking to her Instagram account, Portman wrote, “I chose not to attend [the Genesis Prize Ceremony] because I did not want to appear as endorsing [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony.

“By the same token, I am not part of the BDS movement and do not endorse it. Like many Israelis and Jews around the world, I can be critical of the leadership in Israel without wanting to boycott the entire nation.”

Portman continued, “I treasure my Israeli friends and family, Israeli food, books, art, cinema, and dance.

“Israel has created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power.”

There are a number of problems with this statement. First, it contradicts Portman’s representative’s statement issued 24 hours earlier.

If Portman canceled her participation in the ceremony because she hates Netanyahu, why did her representative say she was distressed by “recent events”?

Netanyahu didn’t assume power “recently.” He’s been in office for nine years.

Indeed, if her hatred for Netanyahu drove her to boycott the prize, the Genesis Prize Foundation should sue her for fraud since it means that she never intended to accept the prize and she deliberately sabotaged the foundation’s work.

Portman’s statement also bespeaks an amazing contempt for Israel itself – in two deeply distressing ways.

First, her claim that Israel was created “as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust” is a dangerous lie. It is a lie Israel’s most murderous enemies propagate as a means of denying Israel’s right to exist. The Iranians and the Palestinians say the Jews have no ties to their ancestral homeland and that Israel is no more than a sop to Europe’s guilty conscience over the Holocaust.

The truth — which Portman is supposed to know as a proud “Israeli” — is that Zionism, the millennial movement of the Jewish return to the land of Israel, and Zionist Jews created Israel. By the time the Holocaust began in 1938, the Jewish pioneers in the land of Israel had already built the foundations of that state. The Holocaust’s practical impact on Israel’s establishment was that it annihilated millions of Jews who wanted to immigrate to Israel.

As if that weren’t enough, Portman went on to reject Israeli democracy. Netanyahu is not a dictator. He and his government were elected by Israel’s voters. When Portman said she thinks Netanyahu is illegitimate, she effectively said the Israeli public which elected him is illegitimate.

Portman’s behavior isn’t surprising. She has been railing against Israel for the past three years in precisely the manner that she assaulted it last week.

On the one hand, she viciously attacks the country on political grounds. On the other hand, she says she doesn’t want her political attacks to be politicized.

Which brings us to the real problem with the entire episode. Given her savage criticism of Israel, spanning years, Portman should never have received the Genesis Prize in the first place. The fact that she did, and the fact that neither the Genesis Prize foundation nor the American Jewish leadership has yet condemned her since she betrayed her word so viciously, is a testament to the political stupidity of American Jewish leadership.

And this is the real problem. The American Jewish community’s insistent embrace of people who reject its values and interests in favor of its liberal political identity is rapidly undoing it. Multi-year survey data make clear that Jewish Americans are among the most liberal groups in the U.S. Naturally, as liberals, they want to be embraced by the group with which they identify most strongly – the Left. Unfortunately for them, the Left is becoming less and less hospitable to Jews.

Recognizing the shift in her camp, for at least three years, Portman has played a transparently phony double game. To maintain her relevance on the increasingly anti-Jewish left, Portman has signaled her hatred of Israel by slandering Netanyahu, the most popular leader in Israeli history as a racist.

On the other hand, to avoid losing her pride of place in the American Jewish community, every time Portman demonizes Netanyahu – and through him, Israelis society as a whole — she adds a disclaimer that she doesn’t support BDS.

If American Jewish leaders were interested in defending their values and interests, they would have called her on this stunt when she first tried it in 2015. Instead, they gave her the “Jewish Nobel Prize.”

And now Israel is reaping what they sowed.</s>Natalie Portman, Netanyahu, and Gaza: Israelis bristle at criticism from 'one of their own'

On Friday, for the fifth week in row, Israeli soldiers and Palestinian protesters once again clashed along the border with Gaza.

This time, three Palestinians were killed.

More than 40 Palestinians have now been killed by Israeli fire in the March of Return protests.

Israel says many of the dead and wounded have links to the military wing of Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza.

But the ongoing deaths in Gaza did not dominate debate in Israel this week.

What many were talking about was the decision of Israeli-American actress Natalie Portman.

Israelis are still trying to digest Portman's refusal to attend the ceremony to accept the prestigious Genesis Prize, sometimes referred to as the Jewish Nobel.

This year's Genesis Prize winner selects charities that receive a total of $US2 million ($2.6 million).

The Hollywood star, who was born in Israel, accepted the prize late last year.

But as the death toll in Gaza mounted recently, she announced she would not attend the prize ceremony in June.

She posted a clarifying statement on Instagram, saying she did not want to appear to be endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He was due to appear at the ceremony.

And in an apparent reference to the Palestinian deaths in Gaza, she wrote: "… the mistreatment of those suffering from today's atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values."

Reaction in Israel was swift. Members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, demanded that her citizenship be revoked.

Others went further.

Speaking on Israeli television, Oren Hazan, a Member of the Knesset for the governing Likud party, said Portman, who is Jewish, was anti-Semitic.

"What Natalie Portman did, she played as a tool for those that hate us more, " he said.

Even those opposed to the government say Portman has unintentionally played into the hands of anti-Israel activists, including supporters of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement.

In her Instagram post, the actress went out of her way to state she does not support the BDS movement.

Ksenia Svetlova belongs to the opposition block in the Knesset.

But even she thinks Portman's decision to boycott the Genesis Prize ceremony was a mistake.

"It is a big deal to us," Ms Svetlova said.

"When we feel somebody who is part of us, she knows all the complexities … and she knows she gives a lot of strength to organisations such as BDS by not coming here."

Ms Svetlova believes that Portman, as an Israeli, should have known better.

"What she does is she alienates the mainstream Israeli folks who live here," she said.

There have been voices, mostly in the arts and on the Israeli left, who have defended Portman's decision.

"It's outrageous to call her anti-Semitic," said David Shadi, an Israeli film director.

"Friends of Israel around the world … it's very important they say what they believe," Mr Shadi said.

"Because you can learn from every aspect that someone who loves you gives you. Even if it's wrong."

The director said Portman is finding out the hard way how criticism from 'one of their own' is viewed by the Israeli public.

"When they see an Israeli figure, or Jewish figure, stands against Israel … they feel like they're attacked."

After all the debate and discussion, there is no word yet about what will actually happen to the $2.6 million to be awarded by the prize winner.

The Genesis Prize Foundation said it is "very saddened" that the Israeli-American actress will not attend.

It also said it had no choice but to cancel the prize ceremony, out of "fear that Ms Portman's decision will cause our philanthropic initiative to be politicised".</s>A familiar scene on the Internet and in countless homes in Israel takes place as follows. A non-Israeli resident (or Israeli ex-pat) will make a statement critical of Israel’s foreign or domestic policy. Israelis will inevitably respond: you don’t live in this country; you don’t have as much at stake as we do; it’s all very well to point fingers from the outside.

Unsurprisingly, Natalie Portman suffered the same fate when the Hollywood star refused the Genesis Prize last week and landed in an international media storm. Portman stated that her refusal of the prize had come in light of “extremely distressing” recent events in the country, pointing an implicit finger at Israel’s reaction to weeks of protest in Gaza.

Israel’s Culture Minister Miri Regev fervently criticized Portman’s decision, and Likud Knesset member Oren Hazan argued that her Israeli citizenship ought to be revoked. Prominent rIghtist voices online vituperated against Portman as part of a “generation of failure” among a litany of ad hominem attacks on her skills and appearance.

The Genesis Prize Foundation said it regretted the prize’s politicization. Yet this comment in itself ignores images of past events that position Hollywood greats like Michael Douglas celebrating his victory alongside a smiling Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister. The so-called Jewish Nobel is a de facto political event, where Netanyahu is at the centre of the PR bonanza. So when the committee regrets the prize’s politicization, it’s really concerned about politicization in the wrong direction.

What is at play in the scandal over Portman’s refusal is a kind of double standard of the Israeli right—of which Portman is not the only victim. Last year’s NGO Law, which requires organizations receiving the bulk of their funding from outside of the country to reveal that fact, makes this same argument: critique of Israel from outside the country is unfounded and will be hounded out. Even domestic human rights groups with external support like B’Tselem have been subjected to unwelcome criticism and attempted delegitimization.

Trying to influence Israeli policy from the outside is enough to render you anathema, then, but the party that Culture Minister Regev and Knesset member Hazan support so vehemently is guilty of the very same behavior. Enter Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson.

Adelson has long been a patron of the Israeli right. The US tycoon has poured tens of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns in his home country. He has done just the same in Israel with the establishment of the rightist newspaper Israel Hayom. The newspaper is so overtly partisan that its nickname in Hebrew is “Bibi’s paper.”

Adelson’s U.S. activities through the Israeli American Council also strive to sway US policy on Israel. Last year the IAC’s annual conference was attended by US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, alongside mostly right-wing MKs from the Netanyahu bloc. This is not a coincidental alliance. Netanyahu and Trump share not only hawkish policies on Palestine but also the same donors.

AIPAC’s activities lurk so prominently in the background in Israel that they could almost go unmentioned. The forum unabashedly supports Netanyahu and helps to tout his policies and worldview to US lawmakers.

To be clear, Netanyahu and his coalition partners are party to the very accusations that they levy against Portman and Israeli NGOs. Adelson’s backstage influence, which espouses aggressive Israeli policy towards Palestinians, is arguably more malign and deeply embedded. Above all, it has the ears of power in Israel in a way that human rights groups do not.

In the common conversation outlined above, the boilerplate rebuttal is as follows. Adelson and AIPAC are friends of Israel, helping to improve its image and lot on the world stage. They contribute to creating a strong country, with warm alliances with important nations, and buttress the security of Israel’s continued existence. B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, and now-unmentionables like Natalie Portman are doing the opposite: they are playing into the agenda of Israel’s enemies. They are feeding the destruction of the Zionist homeland.

But critics are naive if they see the main threat to Israel as coming from the outside. Let us not forget the self-enforced instances of diplomatic isolation, the continued allegations of corruption that rack the prime minister and his colleagues, and the constant assaults on the country’s judiciary. Israel’s reputation abroad may be important to the country’s right-wing. But these otherwise sensitive defenders of the homeland are blind to the institutional decay creaking around them. This is the Israel that Adelson and AIPAC help keep afloat.

Israelis can vote as they please, but they must also understand that Israel is at the center of a set of international frictions that excite comment from outsiders. The right knows this and leverages it expertly to its advantage. At the very least, it must allow the rest to do so too.

Portman and others are not part of a “failed” generation. They are looking for a country that will reflect compassionate Jewish values and provide a just homeland for all. Portman told her Instagram followers that she will be partnering with a number of charities in the country to advance this cause. Compassionate dissenting voices like hers must be welcomed and included into the discursive battle for Israel. This is far from the destruction of the country: it will be its making.

Daniel Amir is a graduate of Oxford University in Persian Studies and an MSc candidate in Conflict Studies at the London School of Economics. He has extensive experience in counter-terrorism and foreign policy research in Jerusalem, London, and Washington. @Daniel_Amir1.</s>Sometimes a cluster of unrelated events transpiring in close succession seem to have an invisible dialogue all its own. This past week seems to have been just such a week.

It started with the emotional milestone of modern day Israel’s 70th anniversary celebrations, with an emotional pinnacle being the prestigious Israel Prize ceremony whose centerpiece was none other than the stirring words of Israel Prize recipient Miriam Peretz.

At the heart of her speech, it almost seemed as though Peretz were conducting a private conversation with fellow Israel Prize recipient, David Grossman.

She is an immigrant from Casablanca, religious, more to the right of Grossman on Israeli politics. He is first and foremost a noted Israeli author, but also outspoken, whose political position is a leftist, often clashing with and even highly critical of government policy.

Both are bereaved parents. Grossman buried a son and Miriam Peretz buried two.

The land has absorbed the blood of each of their kin.

The visage of Grossman during Peretz’s epically loving and wise speech said it all. In case there was any doubt left as to the power of her words truly penetrating all who heard her, including an outspoken author diametrically opposed to her views, Grossman’s and Peretz’s heartfelt hug afterward left no doubt.

This was a moment so rich in humanity, brave and humble and real.

It was also a peak moment showcasing the nobility and the best of what Israeli society can be, and is, even if all too rarely and fleetingly.

On this note, on this incredibly high precious note of very real and vulnerable unity, came the announcement from Natalie Portman that she was reneging on accepting in person the Genesis Prize at an upcoming ceremony in Israel. After many reacted to what felt like a serious betrayal and insult from one of their own, a “Member of the Tribe,” she clarified that her choice stemmed from her dislike of Bibi Netanyahu. No one actually knows her reasoning.

What we can know is that back in November, no one put a gun to Natalie Portman’s head when she was offered the $2 million prize and accepted it. Bibi was prime minister. To dis Israel so rudely and publicly, on her 70th birthday, and at a time when she is already so vulnerable, was a huge mistake and the damage is real.

It also smacks of deep hypocrisy when Portman has had no issue participating in award ceremonies and work projects in China, a government whose signature is human rights abuses.

Possibly, the victory Portman handed on a golden platter to BDS and its philosophical partners was an unintended consequence of someone so disconnected from her people, so desperately wanting to ingratiate herself with an anti-Israel leftist milieu, that it blinded her.

BDS has been pretty clear about the boycotting of Israel, especially endeavoring to halt the visits of visible cultural icons. So whether Portman intended to or not, and from a follow up statement it seems that was not her intention, she was too late. Instantaneously, Portman has become the poster person for anti-Israel activists, including a chilling Al Jazeera video that appeared overnight.

It is upsetting to have someone who sits in the safety of a distant country criticize a government for protecting its borders to ensure that their own citizens can live in the same safety she already enjoys.

But what struck me was the contrast of Natalie Portman’s criticism and statement — which rang very hollow as well as Jewishly vacuous and detached, never mind problematic and shallow, for if she has a moral beef with Israel, isn’t it unethical to come to Israel just for pleasurable pursuits such as dance, food and books? — to the presence, criticism and commitment to Israel of outspoken critic David Grossman.

He paid the highest price. He disagrees strongly with current Israeli policy. But he showed up.

He didn’t decline the prize or make a scene around attending and accepting it. This, even as not two days before the ceremony he didn’t mince words about his concerns for the direction Israel is taking.

Grossman’s political views usually don’t resonate with mine. As a reader of his literature I have great respect for him as an author and writer. Even if I don’t see eye to eye with him on Israeli issues, he is an important voice balancing the Israeli discourse. Not to mention that, heartbreakingly, Grossman paid with the ultimate sacrifice for the State of Israel and that means protecting us all, including you and me.

Grossman shows how you disagree with Israeli policy. By being part of Israel. Not by throwing Israel under the bus, publicly insulting and humiliating her and essentially buttressing the case of BDS, especially when Israel is so unfairly ostracized already by a community who will not be satisfied until Israel is crushed.

That’s not how you show your love for Israel. That is how you break with Israel.

Another comment in Portman’s statement — something to the effect of Israel being founded 70 years ago as a refuge for survivors of the Holocaust — could not have been more inaccurate. Yes, the unfathomable genocide of the Holocaust no doubt impacted the UN vote to establish Israel. But on the eve of WW II, before the Holocaust, Palestine had over half a million Jews and the city of Tel Aviv was more than 30 years old. Herzl’s dream for a reborn revived modern Israel had already been conceived in the previous century, and students of the Gaon of Vilna had started making their way to the land about 80 years before that.

Yes, indeed, having experienced the Holocaust in our time, the Jewish people regard Israel as that much more precious and poignant and fraught.

Which brings me to the beginning of the column about random events in quick succession that seem to be having a dialogue all their own.

Due to the resurgence of anti-Semitic attacks in Germany only seven decades after the Holocaust, survivors still among us in cities across Germany, in Erfurt, Cologne, Potsdam and Berlin, held the Germany Wears The Kippa event. People of all stripes and faiths marched in the streets of Germany in solidarity with Jews who are once again experience, openly, a rise in anti-Semitism.

Thank G-d for Israel. Thank G-d we have a homeland. Since when is there a perfect society that does not need repair? By all means, what demands repair ought to be repaired. But Israel a home for our people. An incredible home to be proud of that is constantly building, contributing, growing.

So instead of fleeing when times get tough, we need to stick with Israel and stay the course during the good and also during the challenging times.

In the spirit of today’s march in German, to paraphrase President John F. Kennedy and to echo the writings of earlier Yiddishists, now more than ever we need to internalize the words “Ich Bin a Yid” and stand with our people and our country.</s>ed note–please keep in mind that the only, repeat–ONLY–reason that there are ‘Jews of good conscience’ coming forward these days–loud-n-proud, large & in charge–protesting against the ‘excesses’ of Israel and especially the ‘corruption’ said to be rampant under the prime ministership of King Bibi is that–

1. Gentiles are beginning to wake from the jamnesia-inducing effects of the janesthesia under which they have been put to sleep and are more and more remembering those things embedded deeply within their Gentile genetic code concerning the dangerous nature of Jewish interests as embedded within Judaic jenetic code,

2. the only way Israel can continue to exist as the parasite upon the rest of the world for which it is totally dependent is for it to go through a ‘rehabilitation’ process that puts the Gentile world back to sleep.

Israel ‘may’ have a loose screw? Where were the op-eds from ‘good Jews’ when 1948 rolled around when 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their lands? How about in 1967? How about all the various massacres that have taken place–exactly in accordance with what the Torah teaches and proscribes–such as Jenin, Deir Yassin, Sabra/Shatilla, Cast Lead, etc, etc, etc?

Remember, all convicted murderers pleading for leniency from the judge presiding over their case make sure to shower, shave, get a nice haircut, and put on their best ‘mea culpa’ face when the occasion calls for it, and not only are Israel’s supporters skilled in this deceptive craft, they are the MASTERS at it.

Thank God for Twitter. Were it not for the social media giant’s decision to suspend Member of Knesset Bezalel Smotrich’s account, his tweet clamoring for Palestinian teen provocatrice Ahed Tamimi to be shot – preferably in the knees – might have gone virtually unnoticed. The total lack of political reaction to an Israeli legislator’s call for Israel Defense Forces soldiers to commit what is essentially a war crime was not only shameful: It provided yet another sign – one of many – of the accelerating spread of lunacy in Israel’s public domain.

For what was the hysterical Israeli reaction to Natalie Portman’s decision to boycott the Genesis Prize ceremony if not a manifestation of mass madness? Inside their cocoon, Israelis may view Likud MK Oren Hazan’s call to strip Portman of her Israeli citizenship as par for the course. They can dismiss Homeland Security Minister Gilad Erdan’s inclusion of a “Star Wars” analogy in his written protest to Portman as harmless if somewhat juvenile humor. And they may be indifferent to Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz’s outrageous assertion that Portman’s decision “borders on anti-Semitism.”

For outside observers, however, all of these were telltale signs that Israel’s screws are loosening.

Not to mention “Culture Minister” Miri Regev’s ludicrous management of the traditional Independence Day torch-lighting ceremony, which included an ugly public spat over whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would address the event, the publication of a supposed last-minute agreement reached with Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, and then the premeditated and flagrant violation of the deal, for all of Israel to see.

Or Netanyahu’s wacko decision to convene a dramatic press conference in which he heaped praise on an agreement reached with the United Nations on Israel’s asylum seekers, only to change his mind within a few short hours while depicting the same agreement as terrible, possibly anti-Semitic and in any case the devil’s work of thugs from the New Israel Fund.

In such a loony environment, it’s unclear whether one can safely assume that decisions on more critical issues are being taken on some island of rationality. Is the coalition’s onslaught on the High Court of Justice a reasonable position or a manifestation of destructive psychosis? Is it really logical for Iran-obsessed Netanyahu to press Trump to renege on the nuclear deal, notwithstanding international opposition and despite the risk of regional war? Is it normal for the Israeli defense minister to directly threaten Russia, as Avigdor Lieberman did on Tuesday, as if Vladimir Putin were a military nonentity like Hamas or Mahmoud Abbas?

One can ascribe the outbreak of lunacy to the paranoia of a prime minister trying to evade criminal indictment or to the cumulative effects of 50 years of denying an occupation that exists right under Israel’s nose, but the symptoms aren’t just local. Ever since Donald Trump took over the White House, most of the world has to pinch itself on a regular basis just to make sure that Trump’s outrageous tweets are part of reality, and not some nightmare that recurs, a la “Groundhog Day,” over and over again.

The only question remaining is whether we are dealing with a collective virus or with a malady that is being spread intentionally, with malice aforethought. Insanity, after all, is one of the prerequisites for imposing totalitarian rule, as Hannah Arendt wrote. “Totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself,” she observed.

Arendt also dispels the illusion, so widespread on the Israeli left, that a day will come when the public will inevitably grow weary and reject a regime’s imposed dementia.

Even when it’s clear to one and all that a leader is disseminating fantasies and falsehoods, Arendt noted half a century before Bibi’s fans deemed him infallible, the public won’t reject him, but on the contrary, admire him even more. For his or her fans, their leader’s distortions, delusions, forgeries and fabrications only provide further confirmation, as if any is needed, of the dictator’s “superior tactical cleverness.”</s>This month, Israeli snipers shot hundreds of Palestinian protesters — including one journalist wearing a vest marked “PRESS” — who posed no life-threatening danger to them, or to the people they’re meant to protect. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman then justified these shootings on the grounds that “there are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip,” suggesting that the area’s 1.8 million Palestinian men, women, and children are all legitimate targets of state violence. Meanwhile, Israel reneged on an agreement with the United Nations to grant legal status to 40,000 African asylum-seekers (whom the Netanyahu government had previously intended to jail en masse or deport), leaving those long-suffering refugees in a state of limbo.

And then, Natalie Portman did something controversial.

Last Friday, the Israeli-American actress abruptly canceled plans to accept a prestigious award in Jerusalem. Initially, this decision appeared to be an endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement; the organization behind the Genesis Prize said that Portman had declined their honor because “she does not feel comfortable participating in any public events in Israel.” But the actress promptly denied that claim, and detailed her true rationale in an Instagram post:

Portman’s statement is a model of liberal Zionist dissent. It focuses its fire on Israel’s elected leadership, while evincing love for its people; insists that one need not choose between the Jewish value of empathy for the marginalized, and support for the Jewish state; and frames her criticism of Israeli policy as a defense of Israel’s own best interests — all while explicitly disavowing the BDS movement.

For decades, progressive Jews have been assured that such sentiments are kosher. The notion that there is a fundamental distinction between the righteousness of Israeli policy and Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state has enabled countless American Jews to reconcile their liberal values with unconditional support for the latter premise. Radicals might have insisted that illiberalism and state Zionism were inextricable; that the maintenance of a majority-Jewish nation in a predominantly Muslim region would inevitably require discriminatory policies. But liberal Jews knew better; they could support both the Israelis and Palestinians — one day, there would be two states for two peoples, Zionism and democracy, from the river to the sea.

In the wake of Portman’s protest, the Israeli government rushed to assure such Jews that they were wrong.

Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said Portman’s actions bordered on anti-Semitism; security minister Gilad Erdan argued that she had “turned to the Dark Side” (just like Anakin Skywalker before her); and an ally of Netanyahu in the Israeli parliament called for stripping the Jerusalem-born actress of her citizenship. The overriding implication of all these statements was the same: One cannot claim to be “pro-Israel” and publicly criticize its “atrocities.”

This response was indicative of the Netanyahu government’s broader disinterest in keeping up the pretenses that sustain liberal Zionism. No longer content with maintaining de facto apartheid rule in the occupied West Bank, Israeli lawmakers are moving to establish the de jure variety. As Israeli civil rights lawyer Michael Sfard recently explained in The New York Review of Books:

Temporariness is one of the qualities that distinguishes the regretful, yet legal, reality of occupation from the illegal act of annexation by force. The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of de facto annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved. Now, this crucial legal-political status is being dismantled. … [T]he ruling parliamentary coalition has put its lawyers to work drafting numerous annexationist bills. Their latest accomplishments include a law, enacted last year, which instructs the army to confiscate private Palestinian land and assign it to the intruding Israelis who have put up settlements there. This law is not only a naked sanction of land theft; it is also an unprecedented imposition of Knesset legislation on Palestinians who have no parliamentary representation. … Justices in the Supreme Court, housed in a hilltop building that faces the Knesset, have set precedents of their own: last November, three judges ruled that the settlers constitute a “local population” in the West Bank, and that therefore, under certain conditions, private Palestinian land can be “temporarily” allocated to serve their needs. Their judgment overturned a principle, upheld for over forty years, that barred the use of private Palestinian land for settlement expansion. Within days of the ruling, the attorney general authorized the army to consider the expropriation of private land owned by Palestinian farmers to pave a settlement road.

Liberal Zionists have long argued that failure to make peace with the Palestinians would eventually force Israel to choose between its Jewish and democratic character. But the Netanyahu regime is perfectly comfortable dispensing with the latter. Israel’s deputy defense minister, MK Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, recently called for the formal annexation of the West Bank “as soon as possible.”

“They want to scare us, that maybe soon we will not be a majority and therefore we have to abandon Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]. This is a grave mistake,” Ben-Dahan told the far-right Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva. “Even if we apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria, full civil rights are not just given, and certainly not on the first day. We will have to wait several years as is customary in every country.”

Natalie Portman is a no radical anti-Zionist. Just a few years ago, she served as a research assistant on a book defending the Jewish state against its left-wing critics. But like most American Jews, she does subscribe to the concept of universal human rights. Her decision to decline the Genesis Award — and the vituperative reaction to that act of dissent — reflects the reality that the Israeli government is no longer interested in indulging the diaspora’s effete concern for the Palestinians’ welfare. And all signs suggest this will remain the case for the foreseeable future. The Israeli left is in tatters, while the steady growth of Israel’s settler and ultra-Orthodox populations appear destined to fortify the state’s commitment to annexationist policies in the years to come.

Thus, to remain conventionally “pro-Israel,” American Jews are going to need to evermore tightly quarantine their liberalism to domestic politics — even as developments in domestic politics exacerbate the difficulty of that task.

There have always been tensions between liberal universalism and Jewish nationalism. But the rise of the Trumpist right has heightened such contradictions. To remain true to both AIPAC and progressivism, a liberal Zionist must now lament border walls in Texas but defend them in the West Bank; condemn Republicans who suggest that nonwhite babies pose a threat to American civilization as proto-Nazis and endorse Israel’s right to defend itself against the “demographic threat” that is Palestinian children; decry Donald Trump’s ban on Syrian refugees and apologize for Israel’s imprisonment of African ones; abhor the president’s indifference to civilian casualties and ignore that Israel’s defense minister believes every man, woman, and child in the Gaza Strip is an enemy combatant.

And they must do all this while Netanyahu and his allies all but encourage American Jews to draw analogies between Trumpism and (actually existing) Zionism, by publicly aligning themselves against Barack Obama and with Donald Trump.

Even before Israel’s rightward shift accelerated over the past year, younger American Jews were growing more estranged from the Jewish state. Pew data from 2013 found that only a third of Jews under 49 believed that Israel’s government was making a sincere attempt at peace with the Palestinians, while a quarter of those between 18 and 29 felt that the U.S. government was “too supportive of Israel” — among Jews between the ages of 30 and 49, that figure was only 12 percent; among those above 65, it was just 5. In all likelihood, the political developments of the last five years have further dampened enthusiasm for Israel among the rising generation of American Jews.

The prospect that young American Jews would lose interest in Zionism had long been a source of anxiety for Israeli policymakers. And many interpreted the Israeli government’s hysterical response to Portman as a testament to that fear. But the opposite interpretation seems just as plausible — that the Israeli Establishment is no longer afraid of losing the affections of the Natalie Portmans of the world.

And why should they be? Between America’s Christian right and growing population of deeply conservative Orthodox Jews, there is a strong base of support in the United States for an unapologetically illiberal and undemocratic Greater Israel. And for now, the vast majority of liberal Jews remain reflexively supportive of the Jewish state, while most who aren’t decline to translate their qualms into political action. Thus, while senior officials in the Israeli government were explicitly endorsing the annexation of the West Bank over the past year, the leadership of the Democratic Party didn’t merely keep silent — they pushed legislation that would make boycotting Israeli goods in protest of annexation (or anything else) a federal crime.

Meanwhile, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates have ostensibly decided that it is better to have Israel as an ally in the fight against Iran, than to have the Palestinian cause as a domestic political distraction. And as an authoritarian China rises, and right-wing populism spreads through the West, it seems plausible that Israel’s occupation might outlive the liberal order that was supposed to (eventually) render it illegitimate.

Liberal Zionists have traditionally leavened their moral objections to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank (and blockade of Gaza) with an appeal to pragmatism: Making painful concessions for peace wasn’t just the right thing for Israel to do, but one necessary for ensuring its long-term survival. For the moment, the Israeli right has reason to view that sentiment as a bluff it wisely called.

It is still possible that liberal Zionists’ warning will prove prescient, that Israel will eventually be forced to either abandon its illiberalism or forfeit its existence. But it’s hard to see how that will happen, unless American Jews are willing to put their liberalism above their Zionism — and to work to force that choice.</s>Rabbi Shmuley Boteach joined SiriusXM hosts Alex Marlow and Frances Martel on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Jerusalem-born actress Natalie Portman’s refusal to visit Israel to accept an award from the Genesis Foundation, a decision she belatedly framed as a rejection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies.

“She’s doing so, it appears, almost purely based on politics — the fact that being associated with Israel now is essentially being associated with President Trump,” Marlow said. “It is about political peer pressure, at least from my vantage point.”

Boteach said that his World Values Network plans to run a full-page ad in the New York Times on Saturday to respond to Portman in the same manner as it publicly criticized pop singer Lorde for canceling a concert in Tel Aviv last June.

“Like all boycotters of Israel, Natalie Portman is a hypocrite,” Boteach said. “Because she’ll go the Shanghai film festival, which is officially sponsored by China’s state-run propaganda machine. She will endorse their state-run propaganda and censorship apparatus. But when it comes to democratic Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East, and a country fighting for its survival against genocidal enemies that are arrayed against it, Hezbollah to the north, Hamas to the west, Iran to the east — she’ll boycott the country.”

“For what?” he asked. “We don’t even really know. She said ‘recent events.’ It could be the clashes between Israel and Hamas on the Gaza border, which is probably happening today again because they do it every Friday.”

“I saw those protests myself. I was two hundred meters from them on the border, last Friday in Israel,” he recalled. “Hamas is a genocidal organization committed to the murder of every Jew on Earth in their charter, including Natalie Portman. They want to kill her too. What does she expect, that Israel is not going to defend its border and allow a genocidal terror group to enter into Israel and murder people?”

“What she did happened on Israel’s 70th birthday,” Boteach noted. “So here she is, Israeli-born, in Jerusalem. The IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, kept her alive against those same genocidal enemies when she was born, up until she was three years old and left the country. No one asked her to don the olive-green uniform and serve in the IDF, which is mandatory for all Israelis — but at the very least, no one asked you to trash the army, either.”

That army keeps that only democracy alive, and it stops a second Holocaust. It’s the height of ingratitude, it’s the height of hypocrisy. You’re running to China and smiling, and that’s not a democracy. You’re trashing Israel and you’re joining the Israel-haters. You’re giving comfort to Israel’s enemies. It’s very disturbing, and it’s utterly inappropriate,” he said.

“She really owes Israel an apology,” he declared.

Boteach marveled that so many “prominent American Jews” are “dumping on Israel.”

“What is this, some sort of club out in Hollywood where you sip champagne, no terrorists are trying to murder you, and then you don’t understand?” he said.

Boteach recalled the inspirational speech given by Mordechai Anielewicz, a revered hero of the Warsaw uprising, who told his fighters he could not offer them a choice between life and death, but they did have a choice between dying as helpless victims or dying in battle against their Nazi oppressors.

“Thank God the Jewish people today have a different choice,” he said. “We can choose life and death. What does Natalie want us to choose? Idleness, nothing, not to fight back against genocide? For God’s sake, it is so utterly immoral of her to condemn Israel for fighting back against committed terrorists who kidnap teenagers — this led to the 2014 Gaza war — you kidnap three teenagers, you murder them as soon as you abduct them. What does she want Israel to do, lay down its arms?”

“One of the other offensive things about it is, she gave a reason on Instagram that she wasn’t going to Israel because she didn’t want to endorse Benjamin Netanyahu and learned he was going to be at the ceremony where she was getting a prize,” Boteach added.

“The fact that a head of government is going to present of course doesn’t constitute an endorsement. She could have criticized Netanyahu — Israel is a democracy! — even at that same ceremony,” he noted.

“But look, love him or hate him, Netanyahu has been elected four times. He’s the only man in the Middle East to be elected. Again, for her to go to China where no one is elected, and we have someone who just basically declared himself to be President-for-Life, and to have no problem and smile broadly at the Shanghai film festival, but to condemn democratic Israel is the height of hypocrisy,” he said.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the author of over 30 books, most recently including The Israel Warrior: Fighting Back for the Jewish State from Campus to Street Corner and Lust for Love: Rekindling Intimacy and Passion in Your Relationship with Pamela Anderson.

Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern.</s>After Natalie Portman announced that she would withdraw from the Genesis Prize awards ceremony in Israel to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of her harshest American critics has been the Zionist Organization of America and its president, Morton Klein. Now, Klein has stepped it up a notch, drawing criticism in the process.

“Natalie Portman’s absurd, uninformed, inaccurate, dangerous views on Israel, while ignoring the anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist views/actions of Hamas and Palestinian Authority gives credibility and legitimacy to the ludicrous, false, nonsensical belief that beautiful women aren’t too bright,” Klein wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.

“Can’t say I’m surprised by this breathtakingly misogynist @MortonAKlein7 tweet on Harvard-educated #NataliePortman, whom he reduces to a ‘beautiful woman,’ Debra Shushan of Americans for Peace Now wrote.

Portman “LITERALLY went to Harvard,” Allison Kaplan Sommer of Haaretz pointed out.

And Rabbi Jill Jacobs of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights wrote that she had reported Klein to Twitter’s support team. “#NotOKForAJewishLeader #Misogyny” she added.

Klein previously co-wrote an op-ed for the Jewish News Service on Tuesday that was scathing in his criticism of Portman.

“Doesn’t she realize that without Israel defending her border against Hamas assaults, and without Israel defending her people from the deadly Palestinian Arab attacks on Jews incited by and paid for by Palestinian Authority dictator Abbas, there would be no ‘Israeli friends, Israeli food, books, art, cinema and dance’? Ms. Portman’s obtuseness is mind-boggling,” Klein and Liz Berney wrote.

“Ms. Portman’s disgraceful statements and reneging on her trip to Israel show contempt for everything she claims to care about,” they added.

Contact Aiden Pink at pink@forward.com or on Twitter, @aidenpink</s>The actress’s snub isn’t a victory for BDS or the Israeli prime minister’s political foes, but it does show how Netanyahu’s image problem has undermined one of his strengths.

(JNS) That so many Jews care so deeply about what an actress has to say about the State of Israel and its prime minister tells us a lot about Jewish insecurity in 2018. But while this isn’t the earth-shattering event some on both ends of the political spectrum are claiming it to be, the issue is still worth discussing. When it comes down to it, it’s not as much about the intrinsic importance of one Jewish celebrity’s opinion as it is about the way the reputation of Israel’s prime minister is becoming more of a hindrance than a help to the Jewish state.

Natalie Portman’s decision to boycott the ceremony during which she was to be bestowed this year’s Genesis Prize—and $2 million to distribute to worthy Jewish causes—set off a wave of commentary. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political opponents, as well as advocates of the BDS movement, cheered her statements while his supporters and others angered by anything that can be perceived as contributing to the Jewish state’s isolation responded with criticism that ran the gamut—from mild disappointment to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Whether you think Portman is a self-involved celebrity more interested in virtue-signaling than doing anything of value for Israel or a great artist sending an important message, the notion that whether she was willing to receive a meaningless honor that organizers call, without a trace of irony, the “Jewish Nobel Prize,” is a matter of transcendent importance is patently absurd.

Nor should Netanyahu’s camp be treating the 36-year-old sabra as a threat to Israel.

As she explained, her snub of the ceremony had to do with the presence of the prime minister. Since she detests Netanyahu, she refused to be a prop in what she considered an event that would, as is always the case with appearances by political leaders of any political stripe, be exploited by the government.

Far from hurting Netanyahu, in one sense Portman actually played right into his hands. The perceived insult to him is the sort of thing that will rile up Israelis who bitterly resent liberal elites, without doing a thing to help his opponents. The talk from some Likudniks about revoking her citizenship is nonsense, however—in the same way that the animus towards President Donald Trump from liberal celebrities in the United States reinforces his base’s resentment toward his critics—it’s just one more excuse for the Israeli right to rally around a man who has become a polarizing figure.

Nor, despite their wishful thinking, has Portman done much to help the BDS movement. As someone who has been clear about her love for Israel and who actually has made a film there, the notion that she is boycotting the country doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. She made that clear in a follow-up statement, even if a number of Israel’s foes are disingenuously treating her stand as a form of BDS.

Portman has already called Netanyahu a racist and clearly identifies with the Israeli left. Like many others in the Diaspora, she doesn’t think much of the premier’s policies. Unfortunately, her statement, which denounced the current government’s “violence, corruption, inequality and abuse of power” as being not in line with her “Jewish values,” could also be interpreted as a criticism of the Israeli army’s use of force to prevent violent demonstrators organized by Hamas marching for the “right of return”— i.e., the destruction of the Jewish state — from breaching the border with Gaza.

That’s the only part of this kerfuffle that matters because it shows that Netanyahu’s toxic reputation abroad is helping to blur the lines between fair comment about his leadership concerning corruption charges and other issues that seem to undermine the country’s right of self-defense. As such, it illustrates a dismaying fact about the prime minister. One of his greatest strengths—the ability to eloquently make the case for the justice of Israel’s cause in flawless English —has been undermined by the steep decline in his image abroad.

Yet the problem here is not just that Portman is wrong about Gaza. It’s that the prime minister has become so weighed down by controversy that his very presence at a glorified photo opportunity is enough to serve as a rationalization for controversy.

Netanyahu’s defenders will insist that this is not his fault. The left has never lacked for excuses to demonize its opponents, and long before he became the subject of corruption investigations, his opponents were eager to try to paint him as an extremist who deserved to be boycotted. The profoundly dishonest attempt by the Labor Party to accuse him of inciting the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin is an example of this effort.

However, Netanyahu’s supporters can’t pretend that his once-impressive ability to sway U.S. public opinion with American-accented English speeches is not a thing of the past. Many of the comparisons between the embattled Israeli leader and Trump are both inaccurate and unfair. But it is true that, like Trump, Netanyahu now seems disinterested in appealing to anyone but his base, and that is taking a toll on American Jewish support for Israel.

After more than a dozen years in power, including the last nine consecutive years, Netanyahu may still be the only plausible candidate for prime minister in terms of his experience and ability, and polls of Israeli voters reflect that. Israelis can dismiss the substance of Portman’s critiques and probably be right or ignore the Diaspora altogether.

But if popular figures like Portman think treating Netanyahu as if he were radioactive won’t hurt their image, it’s no use ignoring the fact that the prime minister’s sagging image doesn’t come at a cost for his country.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS — Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
Protestors give thanks to actress Natalie Portman, who last week drew criticism from Israel after refusing to accept the Genesis Prize from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.