Uncategorized
A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Major American Jewish organizations that hoped to send a unified message about the turmoil in Israel yesterday instead found themselves tussling, partly in the public eye, about what exactly they wanted to say.
Should they praise the massive anti-government protests that have taken shape in recent months? Should they criticize Israel’s sitting government? What, if anything, should they endorse as a next step in the ongoing crisis?
Five large Jewish organizations — all known for their vocal pro-Israel advocacy — began Monday afternoon trying to answer those questions in a unified voice that sent a positive message: praise for a decision to pause the government’s divisive judicial overhaul.
Instead, in a somewhat messy process that unfolded over the course of the afternoon, they ended up sending out a number of different statements that contrasted in subtle yet telling ways. The scramble to publish a statement reflecting consensus — and the resulting impression that consensus was lacking — was a reflection of how Israel’s politics have created a rift in the U.S. Jewish establishment.
For decades, large American Jewish groups have publicly supported Israel’s foreign policy, and mostly stayed quiet on its domestic conflicts. Now, a domestic policy issue threatening to tear Israel apart has compelled at least some of them to do two unusual things: opine on Israel’s internal affairs, and publicly chide the government that, in their view, is responsible for the crisis.
“For a long time any criticism of Israel, even criticism of very difficult policies, was thought to be disloyal, and couldn’t be spoken out of love,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which was not a signatory to the statement but is a constituent of the group that organized it. “I think we now understand that there’s plenty of legitimate criticism and activism that comes from that very place.”
The five groups that began composing the statement together were the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. All have historically been seen as centrist, pro-Israel and representative of the American Jewish establishment, speaking for American Jews in international forums and in meetings with elected officials. All have annual budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Any vocal criticism from those groups has largely been limited to Israel’s treatment of non-Orthodox Jews. Because most American Jews are themselves not Orthodox, American Jewish groups have felt more comfortable advocating for policies that, they believe, will allow more of their constituents to feel welcome in the Jewish state.
But events this year have prompted the groups to speak out on another Israeli domestic issue: the judicial overhaul being pushed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to sap the Israeli Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. The court has, in the past, defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel such as women, the non-Orthodox, Arabs and the LGBTQ community.
“The recognition that what happens in Israel, the policies of the Israeli government and a broader range of issues in this particular case — on judicial reform, the perception of Israel as a vibrant democracy for all of its citizens — that perception has a significant impact on American Jewish life and American Jewish engagement,” said Gil Preuss, CEO of Washington, D.C.’s Jewish federation.
Most of the five groups had previously endorsed calls for compromise on the judicial reform proposal. The federations had also come out against one of its key elements. So when Netanyahu announced on Monday — in the face of widespread protests and dissent from allies — that he would pause the legislative push to allow time for dialogue, they all hoped to express their support.
What to write after that sentiment, however, proved contentious. A version of the statement put out by the American Jewish Committee included sharp criticism of Israeli politicians that was not in the other statements.
The Jewish Federations of North America sent out an addendum to the statement that was sympathetic to anti-Netanyahu protesters.
And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ultimately opted out of the statement altogether — but not before a version had already been released in its name.
None of the five groups responded to requests for comment on the process behind the statement, but insiders said the differences between the statements, and AIPAC’s opting out, had little to do with policy differences. Instead, they blamed the confusion on missteps in the rush to get the statement out in the minutes after Netanyahu’s remarks, which aired in Israel at 8 p.m. and in the early afternoon on the East Coast, where all of the groups are based.
The statement that ultimately appeared, after declaring that the groups “welcome the Israeli government’s suspension” of the reforms, said that the raucous debate and protests over the legislation were “painful to watch” but also “a textbook case of democracy in action.”
A key line included rare advice to Israel from the establishment Jewish groups: “As a next step, we encourage all Knesset factions, coalition and opposition alike, to use this time to build a consensus that includes the broad support of Israeli civil society.”
The Conference of Presidents was the first to release the statement, just past 2 p.m., less than an hour after Netanyahu had completed his remarks. It listed its co-endorsers as the AJC, the ADL and JFNA.
Five minutes later, the AJC put out a version of the same statement that added AIPAC to the endorsers. It included the same sentence offering advice, plus another two that added criticism and a caution: “Israel’s political leaders must insist on a more respectful tone and debate. A hallmark of democracy is public consensus and mutual consideration.”
Statements from JFNA and ADL, which went out subsequently, hewed to the Conference of Presidents version. An AIPAC official told JTA that the group did not want to sign onto the statement because it had wanted more time to add edits.
Just before 3 p.m., more than 40 minutes after its initial email, AJC sent out an email advising recipients that its inclusion of AIPAC was an error.
But its new statement still included the line criticizing politicians, which the other groups had eschewed. In the end, AJC removed that line, too: It is absent from the version of the statement posted on the group’s website.
AIPAC ultimately settled on posting a tweet that stuck to praising Israel for its democratic process, without further comment.
“For many weeks, Israelis have engaged in a vigorous debate reflective of the Jewish state’s robust democracy,” it said. “Israel’s diverse citizenship is showcasing its passionate engagement in the democratic process to determine the policies that will guide their country.”
JFNA, in an explanatory email to its constituents attached to the joint statement, was more pointed in its criticism of Netanyahu. On Sunday night, the prime minister had summarily fired his defense minister, Yoav Galant, for publicly advocating a pause on the legislation. That decision sparked protests across Israel, which in turn prompted Netanyahu to announce exactly the same pause and compromise that Gallant had proposed.
“The response across Israeli society was immediate and angry,” said the email signed by Julie Platt, the chairwoman of JFNA, and Eric Fingerhut, its CEO. “Spontaneous protests gathered in the streets and commentators expressed shock at a decision to fire a Defense Minister for having expressed concern about the risks to the country’s military position … Netanyahu’s own lawyer in his corruption trial announced that he could no longer represent him.”
The groups weren’t alone in releasing pained statements about Israel’s volatility — which has also stirred anguish among groups that have previously defended the Israeli right.
This week, Rabbi Moshe Hauer of the Orthodox Union, who met earlier this month with far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, praised Israel’s leaders for “the recognition of the value of taking time, engaging with each other with honesty and humility, and proceeding to build consensus.” (Smotrich, for his part, supports the overhaul and opposed pausing the legislation.)
“Our Sages taught, ‘Peace is great; discord is despised’,” Hauer, the group’s executive director, said in an emailed statement to JTA. “We are deeply shaken by the upheaval and discord that has gripped our beloved State of Israel. In recent weeks, the Jewish tradition and the democratic value of vigorous debate have been replaced by something very dangerous and different.”
The two largest non-Orthodox movements were open about their opposition to the overhaul. “We believe ardently that the proposed judicial reform is fraught with danger and goes against the principles of democracy,” the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly said in a statement Tuesday.
A statement from the leadership of the Reform movement, including Jacobs, castigated Netanyahu for agreeing to create a national guard under the authority of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, and for being “willing to risk the safety and security of Israel’s citizens to keep himself and his coalition in power.”
That strong language, Jacobs suggested, reflects the wishes of those who fund establishment Jewish groups and congregations. He said those groups were hearing from donors whose frustration with the Netanyahu government is reaching a boiling point.
“I hear of donors telling organizations, ‘I have to tell you, I don’t hear your voice, speaking out in favor of Israel’s democracy at this very vulnerable moment. So I’ll tell you what, why don’t you hang on to my phone number when you find your voice?’”
—
The post A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
France, Spain Signal Support to Blacklist Iran’s IRGC as EU Moves Closer Toward Terrorist Designation
Commanders and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps meet with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran, Iran, Aug. 17, 2023. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The European Union could soon label Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, after France and Spain signaled a shift in support amid mounting international outrage over the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on anti-government protests and shocking reports of widespread civilian deaths.
As two of the largest EU member states previously to oppose blacklisting the IRGC, France and Spain could tip the balance and pave the way for the designation, as the regime’s brutal suppression of dissent at home and support for terrorist operations abroad continues.
On Wednesday, a day before EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss the issue, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced that France will back the move to blacklist the IRGC, saying the repression of peaceful protesters must not go unanswered and praising their courage in the face of what he described as “blind violence.”
“France will support the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations,” he posted on X.
After reversing its long-standing opposition to the move, France also urged Iran to free detained protesters, halt executions, restore digital access, and permit the UN Human Rights Council to investigate alleged abuses.
Multiple media outlets also reported that the Spanish government is expected to back the EU’s move to blacklist the IRGC, aligning with France in breaking its previous opposition.
The United States, Canada, and Australia have already designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, while Germany and the Netherlands have repeatedly called on the EU to do the same.
Some European countries, however, have been more cautious, fearing such a move could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, which could impact negotiations to release citizens held in Iranian prisons.
The EU has already sanctioned the IRGC for human rights abuses but not terrorism.
Labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization would not only extend existing EU sanctions, including asset freezes, funding bans, and travel restrictions on its members, but also activate additional legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would severely limit its operations across Europe.
Earlier this week, Italy also reversed its earlier hesitation and signaled support for the measure after new reports exposed the scale of Iran’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protests — a move that sparked diplomatic tensions, with the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoning the Italian ambassador.
According to local media, Iranian authorities warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the IRGC, calling upon Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran.”
Tajani said the Iranian regime’s bloody crackdown on anti-government protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X. “I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
As international scrutiny over the regime grows, new estimates show that thousands have been killed by Iranian security forces during an unprecedented crackdown on nationwide protests earlier this month, far surpassing previous death tolls.
Two senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
The Iranian regime has previously reported an official death toll of 3,117. But new evidence suggests the true number is far higher, raising fears among activists and world leaders of crimes against humanity.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,858 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
Established after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC wields significant power in the country, controlling large sectors of the economy and armed forces, overseeing Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs, and coordinating closely with the regime’s terrorist proxies in the region.
Unlike the regular armed forces, the IRGC is a parallel military body charged with protecting Iran’s authoritarian regime, ensuring its so-called Islamist revolution is protected within the country and can be exported abroad.
Uncategorized
Petition Calls for US Investigation Into Immigration Status of Daughter of Former Iranian President
Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, right, and his daughter, Leila Khatami. Photo: Screenshot
A petition circulating online that has garnered tens of thousands of signatures is calling on US authorities to investigate the immigration status of Leila Khatami, the daughter of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, arguing that relatives of senior figures tied to Iran’s ruling establishment should not benefit from life in the United States while Iranians at home face repression.
The petition, launched by an anonymous activist identifying as an “Iranian Patriot,” urges the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review Khatami’s residency or visa status and to consider revocation and deportation if any legal grounds exist.
“This is not personal revenge. This is justice,” states the petition, which as of this writing has 84,919 verified signatures. “You cannot chant ‘Death to America’ through your political system while your own family enjoys safety, stability, and prosperity in America.”
Mohammad Khatami served as Iran’s president from 1997 to 2005 and has been described as a reformist figure within the Islamic Republic’s political system. Despite his reformist reputation, however, critics note that the Iranian state remained responsible for widespread human rights abuses at home and support for terrorist proxies abroad during his time in office.
Under Iran’s authoritarian, Islamist system, the Guardian Council, a 12-member body composed of clerics and jurists appointed either directly or indirectly by the supreme leader, bars any candidate from running for office not considered acceptable by the regime.
According to publicly available information cited in the petition, Leila Khatami, born in 1976, has pursued an academic career in the United States and has reportedly worked as a mathematics professor at Union College in New York. The petition argues that her presence in the US exemplifies a broader pattern of children of senior Iranian officials living in Western democracies while ordinary Iranians face repression at home.
Human rights activists have long documented abuses by the Islamic Republic, including the use of torture, suppression of protests, and severe restrictions on political freedoms.
Over the past few weeks, however, the Iranian regime has gone to unprecedented lengths to crush nationwide anti-government protests with a bloody crackdown. More than 30,000 people may have been killed by security forces earlier this month, according to new estimates that far exceed earlier death tolls.
Senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that the scale of the killings and executions has overwhelmed the state’s capacity to dispose of the dead, saying that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
Aligned with the Ministry of Health’s new figures, Iran International reported that security forces killed over 36,500 Iranians during the Jan. 8–9 nationwide crackdown, marking the deadliest two-day massacre of protesters in modern history. The news outlet cited newly obtained classified documents, field reports, and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,858 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
The Iranian regime has reported an official death toll of 3,117.
The nationwide protests, which began with a shopkeepers’ strike in Tehran on Dec. 28, initially reflected public anger over the soaring cost of living, a deepening economic crisis, and the rial — Iran’s currency — plummeting to record lows amid renewed economic sanctions, with annual inflation only getting worse.
However, the demonstrations quickly swelled into a broader anti-government movement calling for the fall of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and even a broader collapse of the country’s Islamist, authoritarian system.
The online petition does not allege that Leila Khatami herself has committed crimes in the United States. Instead, it argues that allowing family members of senior Iranian political figures to live in the US undermines accountability and sends the wrong message amid ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran.
The campaign reflects growing anger within segments of the Iranian diaspora, particularly after the latest protests in Iran were met with deadly force. Activists argue that pressure should extend beyond sanctions on Iranian officials to include scrutiny of their family members living abroad.
The petition also comes on the heels of Emory University terminating Dr. Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, the daughter of Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The termination came after US Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) argued that her presence posed national security and patient trust concerns.
The US Department of the Treasury this month sanctioned her father for his role in coordinating the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protests throughout the country. According to the Treasury, Larijani publicly called on security forces to use force against demonstrators demanding basic rights, and his actions are tied to thousands of deaths and injuries.
The Algemeiner has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment for this story.
Uncategorized
Federal building with murals by Jewish artists at risk of sale, demolition
(JTA) — A federal building in Washington D.C. known for its murals crafted by important Jewish artists is at risk of demolition.
Now, activists are calling on New York City’s Jewish Museum for support to prevent the sale — and possible destruction — of the Wilbur J. Cohen Building.
The Jewish Museum recently concluded a retrospective of one artist whose work appears in the building, Ben Shahn.
In a letter to Jewish Museum leadership, artist-activists asked for support, citing President Donald Trump’s previous destruction of artistic landmarks as a real estate developer in New York City and a broader, nationwide record of preservation failures in the past.
“The United States has a woeful record of respecting, preserving, and restoring its public art, especially compared with older and less wealthy countries,” the letter said. It added, “We’d like to ask you to join in calling for a halt to the sale and destruction of this landmark building and its inspirational art.”
The letter was spearheaded by a trio of Jewish artists — Elise Engler, Joyce Kozloff and Martha Rosler — and currently has more than 300 signatures. Another petition aiming to preserve the building was launched in November, led by a group called the Living New Deal.
The Jewish Museum has expressed sympathy to the cause but not said whether or how it might heed the activists’ calls.
“The Jewish Museum, like all other collecting museums, is deeply committed to the stewardship of art and architecture as part of our shared cultural legacies,” director James Snyder said in a statement.
He added, “We have been attentive to this issue since it emerged, and we stand with other art world leaders, artists, and preservationists in advocating for the protection and preservation of these historic murals, while we also work to advance further strategies to ensure their safekeeping.”
The Cohen Building, which houses staffers from multiple government agencies, is sometimes referred to as the “Sistine Chapel of the New Deal” due to the style and content of the frescoes painted directly onto the walls. Completed in 1940, the building was a project of President Franklin Roosevelt’s economic and social plan known as the New Deal. Artwork for New Deal projects celebrated the working class in a new American style and were made to be accessible to the public.
Jewish artists including Shahn, Philip Guston, and Seymour Fogel contributed murals to the Cohen Building. Sculptures by archaeologist/sculptor Emma Lu Davis, German-American sculptor Henry Kreis and Richmond Barthé, a fixture of the Harlem Renaissance, can also be found throughout the building, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. It is extremely difficult to remove frescoes from the walls they are painted on.
The agency that oversees the U.S. government’s real estate, called the General Services Administration, began selling other federal buildings on its list late last year in a process called “accelerated disposition.” This would permit a quick sale with limited public input.
The Trump administration is in the process of moving staff out of the Cohen building, a requirement for its sale. Should the Cohen building ultimately be sold to a private buyer, there is no guarantee that the artworks will be preserved, the activists say. But the GSA says otherwise.
“As designated by Congress, the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building is required to be sold within two years of the building being vacated,” Marianne Copenhaver, a spokeswoman, said in a statement to JTA. “The building is still occupied. GSA has engaged art conservation professionals to evaluate the current condition of the New Deal art and identify any necessary conservation measures.”
The building’s namesake helped write the 1935 Social Security Act and later served as the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The provision that permits the sale was tacked onto a water bill passed in January 2025. The sale reflects the GSA’s sweeping mandate to cut costs under the Trump administration. One of the officials playing a leading role in that effort is Josh Gruenbaum, a Jewish attorney who was appointed commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, the GSA office that makes purchases on behalf of the government. Gruenbaum has been named a senior advisor to Trump’s Board of Peace, and has said he is using his FAS role to counter antisemitism.
The post Federal building with murals by Jewish artists at risk of sale, demolition appeared first on The Forward.