Connect with us

RSS

Ted Deutch left Congress to head a Jewish organization. Can he find the ‘nuance’ that he seeks?

(JTA) — “Nonpartisan.” “Centrist.” The words seem quaint in an era of house-on-fire polarization, but Ted Deutch, marking one year as CEO of the American Jewish Committee, remains committed to what he calls “nuance” in fighting the community’s battles. 

“Having been a Democratic member of Congress, I don’t think there’s anyone who better understands the threat that extreme partisanship poses to the country and, frankly, to the issues that we in our community care deeply about,” Deutch told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an interview last week. “And someone’s got to stake out a loud position that says, ‘We’re not going to be pulled to the far right or the far left.’” 

Deutch succeeded David Harris as head of the 116-year-old AJC after 12 years representing South Florida in Congress, where he was an outspoken advocate for Israel and for combating antisemitism. One year into his new job, he’s carefully stoked AJC’s reputation as a sort of “State Department” of the organized Jewish community, with its citizen diplomacy on behalf of Jewish concerns and advocacy for Israel. 

At the same time, he was drawn into unforeseen crises, like the outrage that followed online antisemitic rants by the rapper formerly known as Kanye West and and the tumult over the right-wing Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plans

He’s also cultivated the AJC brand: temperate, somewhat patrician, more comfortable pulling together a task force or quietly meeting with a social media executive than issuing an angry press release or tweet. In a wide-ranging conversation, he discussed whether that approach remains viable — or even advisable — in the current political climate, why he thinks AJC speaks for a majority of American Jews and how he feels about reports that support for Israel is softening among his former Democratic colleagues.

Our conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

It’s been almost a year since you left Congress to take your position at the American Jewish Committee. Do you miss politics?

I’m grateful to have had the opportunity and proud of what I was able to do on Jewish issues as chair of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. I chaired the Ethics Committee, which, especially around the time of the High Holidays, feels like a Jewish part of my work as well, frankly. And it was really great work. It’s also, as everyone knows, a bitterly partisan place. It was different when I left than it was when I got there seven terms before. And to have had the opportunity to leave what is perhaps the single most partisan place in America to lead a Jewish organization that allows me to work on the issues that are central to who I am to and do it every day of the week (except for Shabbat) — and to do it in a space that is nonpartisan and nuanced, and that recognizes the importance of working together — that’s been fantastic.

I want to get back to the issue of partisanship, especially as it applies to the Jewish community. But first I want to ask: The Anti-Defamation League and dozens of other organizations fight antisemitism. AIPAC lobbies for Israel. A network of community relations councils advocates for a Jewish agenda in local government. Why do we need the American Jewish Committee? 

AJC is the global advocacy organization for the Jewish people. The mission is both straightforward and incredibly expansive. Our mission is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and advance democratic values. Yes, there are lots of organizations that work on various pieces of that, but we have for more than 116 years. We have been active in the United States and around the world now with 25 regional offices, and offices and representatives all across the globe, forging the kinds of relationships that are necessary in a nonpartisan way to advocate for the entirety of the Jewish people. There’s 16 million Jews in the world out of eight-and-a-half billion people and AJC’s role is to advocate on behalf of all of them — whether it’s working in Paris, to help ensure that the Macron government understands the challenges that Israel or the Jewish community faces, or our new regional office in San Diego or our regional office or in Atlanta that’s working on building relationships in the intergroup space.

The Jewish community may not be partisan in the sense that you are using the term, but it’s certainly polarized, with its own far right and far left. In recent years AJC has been seen as the ultimate “centrist” Jewish group, which to some is a compliment and to others a sign that it doesn’t take tough positions that could alienate those on either side of the political debate. Do you accept the label of “centrist” and if so why?

Proudly centrist. Yes, you’re right, in the Jewish community, like in the broader community, there are definitely extremes. But I absolutely believe that the vast majority of members of the Jewish community, like most people in America, don’t spend their time on the extremes. They don’t spend their time looking for ways to demonize one another. In the Jewish community that means finding opportunities to work together to strengthen the Jewish community, like giving voice to Jewish students or training the next generation of global Jewish leaders to stand and advocate for Jewish communities with governments around the world and here in our own country. 

The suggestion that being centrist is somehow more challenging, with the noise coming from the extremes, highlights exactly why AJC’s role is so necessary. We’re going to call out antisemitism wherever we see it on the far left or the far right. We’re going to work with whoever we need to to advance the Jewish community’s interests. 

“We’re not going to take positions that play into the hands of those whose interest is not in Israeli democracy, but whose interest is in finding ways to undermine Israel’s very right to exist,” said Ted Deutsch. (Courtesy AJC)

So let me give you a test case. AJC issued a statement on the judicial reform effort in Israel essentially criticizing the government’s rush to change the law, defending checks and balances, minority rights and civil liberties, and urging compromise. Other Jewish groups, alarmed by the government’s anti-democratic moves, have used much stronger language. Does AJC risk appearing out of step by in this case saying less? 

I would absolutely disagree. I took a group of AJC leaders to Israel in January. The protests had been going on for a couple of weeks, as I recall, and we were the first organization to lay out our position with respect to judicial reform. And we haven’t wavered from it. We’ve engaged with all of the parties and that I think is perhaps a difference. Our view, as we said in Israel at the time, is that it’s not up to us to decide whether Israel decides [to change] their judicial system. That’s not our call. However, if they’re going to do anything that dramatically impacts the institutions that are fundamental to Israeli democracy, given the importance of democracy in Israel and to the Jewish people, if they’re going to do anything that’s going to affect that, it ought to come as a result of a process that is thoughtful and deliberative and that ultimately seeks compromise and respects civil liberties and minority rights. I said it in my meetings with the Knesset. I said it in my meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And it’s why we’ve been so supportive of [Israeli] President [Isaac] Herzog’s efforts to reach a compromise. And when the “reasonableness” bill went through and it wasn’t the result of a deliberative process or compromise, we said so at the time

What we’re not going to do as an organization that is fiercely pro-Israel, is we’re not going to take positions that play into the hands of those whose interest is not in Israeli democracy, but whose interest is in finding ways to undermine Israel’s very right to exist. So I’m not going to declare that this government is illegitimate. I’m not going to take sides in political battles. We have a principled approach that respects the importance of Israeli democracy for Israel and for Diaspora Jewry. And we point out that the fact that these protests have gone on as long as they have, using as their symbol the Israeli flag, is a perfect example of what Israel represents. 

The fight against antisemitism has also become partisan, even within the Jewish community, with disagreement over whether the biggest threat is from a violent right or an anti-Israel left. Are you concerned about how it’s been made a partisan issue and a polarizing issue when it should be a consensus issue?

I don’t know how anyone who couldn’t have that concern. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which antisemites we’d like to focus on. It’s why we do so much in the Latino Jewish space, in the Black church space and why our Muslim Jewish Advisory Council matters so much. It’s why we’ve been so engaged with the Catholic Church. When I was in Congress, it was always easy to point out the antisemitism among those that you disagree with in partisan political terms. It’s a lot more challenging to call out the statements and behavior of those in your own party. That, unfortunately, is now something that we see beyond the halls of Congress. 

Take the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, for example. It looks a lot like the AJC’s Call to Action Against Antisemitism, which we published several years ago, and we worked hard with the White House to help inform them in drafting their society-wide approach. There are over 200 specific action items that will help keep the Jewish community safe, and yet there are those who immediately pivot to the things that they think undermine the effort to fight antisemitism. That’s the challenge. We have to be able to come together and call out the antisemites wherever they are, and it’s hard. But again, it’s what most people want us to do in the real world. 

Speaking of the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which the Biden administration announced in May: I’m curious how you, as a former member of Congress, view the effectiveness of such strategies. Have you seen examples of an administration setting priorities like this that have a real effect in bringing about change, and do you worry that action plans like this sound great but won’t be enacted? 

That’s why we immediately formed a task force with over 50 of our professionals from around the country and from 14 different departments of AJC, all with a goal of identifying every one of the 200 action items and making sure that it’s carried out. This cannot be a document that sits on a shelf. It can’t be a document that is important in this administration, but then future administration’s may push it aside. I can tell you just from the work that we’ve done, there are parts of the federal government that never really think about antisemitism. That’s why his plan is so significant. It went out to the bureaucrats, the policy people who are doing the work.

Can you give me an example? When AJC follows up with bureaucrats in government to discuss the strategy against antisemitism, what’s the ask?

Sure. We entered into an agreement with the Small Business Administration. Administrator [Isabella Casillas] Guzman came down to South Florida and we did a roundtable with small business owners. Small businesses represent the heart and soul of our economy. They don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how to fight antisemitism. They’re trying to earn a profit. So this roundtable will be replicated around the country with the regional offices of the SBA, to help them understand how to respond if there’s antisemitism in local small businesses and better understand the challenges that Jewish small business owners face. This is the kind of thing that can make a real difference, if for no other reason than there are lots of people who don’t think about antisemitism who will now join in this fight with us. 

There’s one other quick example. We recently had a meeting with a number of mayors on Long Island. We’ve partnered with the Conference of Mayors to come up with a mayor’s guide to combating antisemitism, which these mayors are now committing to. So that when a national debate happens after Kanye decides to unload an antisemitic rant on the Jewish people online, there’s an opportunity to engage more allies with us than we’ve ever had before. 

When you raise Kanye, we’re talking about the toxic effect of social media and celebrity and how someone with antisemitic ideas can own a platform with a couple of rants. Tell me about your outreach to social media companies. You saw how Elon Musk went after the Anti-Defamation League for calling out antisemitism on X/Twitter. What does AJC do differently in this regard?

I can tell you what we have done for some time now. A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X. And we were very, very clear about what we wanted and steps that they could take to make their platform safer for the Jewish community. And she made clear to us that she’s the CEO and that she welcomed our input. We’ve continued the conversations where we’ve offered to be helpful in a whole variety of ways, including helping to identify blind spots. 

Such as?

We know that outside of the Jewish community, there are lots of antisemitic tropes that over millennia have led to really dire outcomes for the Jewish community, including violence and pogroms and expulsion from countries and and obviously, the worst case, the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. We understand that there are lots of people who need to be educated about why statements about Jews and power and conspiracy theories about Jewish control are so dangerous. That’s one of the ways that we’ve offered to be helpful. 

We’ve also suggested some steps that can be taken right now. For example, if there’s a post on X that is antisemitic in nature, there’s not a way to respond and raise the issue for X and specifically identify it as antisemitic. Well, that’s an easy step. And then big picture: What we want from all of the social media companies first and foremost is for them to enforce their own rules. These are private companies. They have rules about what is and what isn’t tolerated on their platforms. We want them to enforce those rules to prevent antisemitism that’s a threat to the Jewish people. 

And it was your takeaway that Yaccarino seemed amenable to these kinds of suggestions?

She was absolutely willing to continue to engage with us. We’ve continued to follow up and, and certainly my hope from that response is that we’ll see concrete actions. 

I want to pivot to talk about a survey AJC did last year about millennials’ attitude toward Israel, which confirmed that American Jewish millennials are distancing themselves from Israel more than their elders. AJC’s message at the time was that the numbers were not quite as bad as some people feared — nevertheless, the trends are clear. How worried are you about disaffection for and alienation from Israel for younger Jews — and if you had a solution, what would it be?

Well, first of all, the top line of the survey was that three-quarters of American Jewish millennials believe that it’s important for Jews to have close ties with Israel. So I think that’s significant. That’s something that we see in the work that we do every day. 

There are others who have questions about Israel’s policies, and I’m not writing off young Jews who come from a place of concern about Israel. It’s a serious issue. We engage in it. It’s why we devote so much attention through our our high school division, our Campus Global Board, our young leadership division, in ensuring that we’re addressing these issues that we’re discussing, but that we’re also capitalizing on the incredible energy and enthusiasm and passion of young people who absolutely want to join the effort with their fellow Jews from around the world in supporting one another and supporting Israel.

But it’s also a little more complex. We don’t shy away from the conversations that young people want to have. I don’t believe that the way to address concerns about millennials is simply to lecture them and tell them that if you simply understand this piece of history, then you’ll understand why this should all be so important to you. I was in France a few months ago and heard from a number of Jewish university students that when they went to parties, as soon as someone learned they were Jewish, they were bombarded with questions about Israel and the Palestinians. And so for some, [in terms of their distancing from Israel,] it’s more an issue of not wanting to define their Jewish identity [in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. It doesn’t mean that they’re anti-Israel.

A delegation from the American Jewish Committee marches in the Celebrate Israel parade in New York City, June 4, 2023. (Philissa Cramer)

The anecdote about the French students reminds me of a critique, not just about AJC but many Jewish mainstream institutions, that by making Israel so integral to what it means to be an American Jew, it came at the expense of creating a distinct American Jewish identity. Do you think Jewish organizations somehow share in the blame for that, in the sense that they tied the two identities too closely together?

No, I don’t. Israel means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Some people engage in Israel because they care about Israel as a Jewish homeland. Some people recognize it as a refuge for Jews from around the world. For some it’s based purely on the importance of Israel in our prayers. 

I do think, however, that this gets to a broader point of what we should be advocating for. If the only thing that we’re doing as a community is responding to antisemitism, if we’re letting the people who hate Jews define the Jewish community’s mission, or that the only Jewish history that we’re really focused on is the Holocaust, then we’re failing our young people. The big question that I find myself asking, especially around the holidays, is what happens when we win the battle against antisemitism? That’s why it is so important for us to be not just a global organization, but a proudly Jewish organization. We have to understand who we are so that others can understand who we are and what we’ve contributed to the world and to America. And that requires us to learn a little more and be understandably proud of what it means to be a Jew in America.

Can you give me a specific example of AJC programming that’s about inculcating this sort of Jewish pride?

Our Leaders for Tomorrow program for high school teaches kids to not just be proud, proud Jews and and proudly pro-Israel but helps them understand what we’ve contributed throughout history. And our center for Contemporary Jewish Life does educational programs that lead the way on this whole Jewish-and-proud effort.

You succeeded David Harris, who led the organization for over 30 years. What goals did you set out for AJC when you took over and what have you achieved? What hasn’t been done and are you most anxious to get going?

First of all, AJC for over 116 years has been a trusted — I would argue, the most trusted — voice across the globe in representing the Jewish community. And I came in committed to expanding on that legacy. Right at the beginning I wanted to make sure that people know who we are. There’s no benefit when you’re a global NGO in being referred to as “the best kept secret,” which is something that I heard from time to time when I started. 

But in my first week Kanye went on his antisemitic rant against the Jews and suddenly, I found myself in front of cameras and talking to reporters about antisemitism because this is something that AJC had been dealing with for decades in Europe. It’s the reason that we worked so hard with the White House and in helping to inform the creation of the national strategy. 

When I first announced I was taking this job we were in a different place in Israel. The government was different. It was the most diverse government in the history of Israel, and now we have the most conservative government in the history of Israel. But that hasn’t stopped us from continuing to work hard to expand Israel’s place in the world and expand the Abraham Accords. So we’ve continued to meet with leaders from throughout the Gulf and to build out the work that we do in our offices in Jerusalem and in Abu Dhabi to really help propel the Abraham Accords forward. 

We also recognize the need to continue to expand, which is why we opened the new office in San Diego in my first year, deepening our relationship and our political activity in Denver and in the Mountain States and embarking on a major expansion in Florida.  

What haven’t I been able to do? For my first 12 months after leaving Congress, I’ve been barred [by House ethics rules] from engaging my former colleagues on any substantive issues. Come Oct. 1, as someone who has deep personal relationships with members of Congress across the aisle, I’ll be re-engaging with Democratic leaders and Republican leaders in ways that will strengthen our place in Washington and in turn, the Jewish community’s and Israel’s place in the world.

I want to ask about that. Within the Democratic Party, there has been some drift away from Israel, and there’s been some harsh criticism from certain lawmakers on the party’s left. Are you concerned that the party is not as forthrightly pro-Israel as it used to be? And are you worried about Israel itself becoming a partisan issue in Congress?

There have been people who have been trying to make Israel a partisan issue for a long time. I fought that when I was in Congress. Our role as a nonpartisan organization, as a centrist organization, is to call out those on both sides who try to weaponize the issue and engage in the use of antisemitic tropes. We work closely with those Republicans who are fiercely pro-Israel. And you also have to look at Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who recently led a group of Democratic lawmakers to Israel. His commitment to Israel is very strong and firm. Yeah, there’s a small minority who tried to politicize this issue. There’s a small minority who take positions that I think need to be called out. I did that when I was on the floor of the House. We’re going to work with leadership to advance the issues of the Jewish community. It’s something that I look forward to doing with people that I’ve known for a long time and based on relationships that I think will be really helpful.


The post Ted Deutch left Congress to head a Jewish organization. Can he find the ‘nuance’ that he seeks? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

RSS

‘Valid For All Countries Except Israel’

US passport. Photo: Pixabay.

JNS.orgThere’s an unwritten rule among governments in many Muslim countries—when things go wrong at home, turn on the State of Israel.

Bangladesh, one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in Asia, provides the latest example of this tactic. Last week, the authorities in Dhaka announced that they were reintroducing what is essentially a disclaimer on the passports issued to its citizens: “Valid for all countries except Israel.” That shameful inscription was abandoned in 2021 by the government of recently ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, although it was never followed up with diplomatic outreach to Israel, much less recognition of the Jewish state’s right to a peaceful and sovereign existence.

The rationale for the move in 2021 was that Bangladeshi passports had to be brought up to date with international standards. However, the war in the Gaza Strip triggered by the Hamas pogrom in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, has apparently canceled out that imperative.

“For many years, our passports carried the ‘except Israel’ clause. But the previous government suddenly removed it,” Brig. Gen. Mohammad Nurus Salam, passports director at the Department of Immigration, told the Arab News. Somewhat disingenuously, he added: “We were used to seeing ‘except Israel’ written in our passports. I don’t know why they took it out. If you talk to people across the country, you’ll see they want that line back in their passports. There was no need to remove it.”

It’s been 25 years since I was in Bangladesh, where I spent several months as a BBC consultant assisting with the launch of the country’s first private TV news station. One of the aspects that struck me profoundly—in contrast to Salam’s claim that the people want their passports to preclude travel to Israel—was the lack of hostility towards Israel among the many Bangladeshis I met and worked with, and I have no reason to believe that this attitude has fundamentally shifted. Most Bangladeshis are consumed by their own country’s vast problems, and the distant Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not impinge in any way on the resolution of those.

When I told people that I was Jewish, had family in Israel and had spent a great deal of time there, the most common response was curiosity. For the great majority, I was the first Jew they had ever met, and they eagerly quizzed me about the Jewish religion, often noting the overlaps with Islamic practices, such as circumcision and the prohibition on consuming pork.

“What is Israel like? What are the people like?” was a conversation I engaged in on more than one occasion. I remember with great affection a journalist called Salman, a devout Muslim who invited me to his home for an iftar meal during Ramadan. Salman was convinced that there were still a couple of Jews living in Bangladesh, and he combed Dhaka trying to find them so that he could introduce me (he never succeeded because there were no Jews there, but I appreciated his efforts.) I also remember members of the Hindu community, who compose about 8% of the population, drawing positive comparisons between Bangladesh’s Indian-backed 1971 War of Independence against Muslim Pakistan and Israel’s own War of Independence in 1947-48.

To understand why Bangladesh has taken this regressive decision requires a hard look at its domestic politics. In August of last year, the government of Sheikh Hasina—the daughter of independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the dominant political figure over the past 30 years—was overthrown following a wave of protest against its well-documented corruption, discriminatory practices and judicial interference. Her downfall was accompanied by a surge of sectarian violence against Hindu homes, businesses and temples, with more than 2,000 incidents recorded over a two-week period. In the eyes of many, Hindus were associated with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League Party, and the violence against them suggested that Islamist positions were making headway in a country that flew the banner of secular nationalism in its bid to win freedom from Pakistani rule.

The passport decision can be viewed in a similar light: Bangladesh asserting its identity as a Muslim country standing in solidarity with the Palestinians, the Islamic world’s pre-eminent cause, at the same time as breaking with the legacy of Sheikh Hasina’s rule. Yet that stance will not alleviate the fiscal misery of Bangladeshi citizens, with more than one in four people living below the poverty line. Nor will it address the chronic infrastructure problems that plague the country’s foreign trade, or tackle the bureaucracy and red tape that crushes entrepreneurship and innovation.

In short, supporting the Palestinians brings no material benefits for ordinary Bangladeshis, who would doubtless gain from a genuine relationship with Israel that would introduce, among many other advantages, more efficient water technology to counter the presence of arsenic and the lack of sanitation that often renders Bangladesh’s large reserves of water unusable and undrinkable.

Even so, ideology and Muslim identity may not be the only explanations for the Bangladeshi decision. It can also be seen as a gesture towards Qatar, the wealthiest country in the Islamic world, which has artfully cultivated trade and diplomatic ties with a slew of less developed countries, Bangladesh included. Last year, Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, paid a two-day state to Bangladesh that showcased Doha’s contributions in the form of bilateral trade worth $3 billion as well as millions of dollars in Qatari grants for school and higher education. Such largesse on the part of the Qataris is a critical means of ensuring that governments in Bangladesh and other Muslim nations stay away from the Abraham Accords countries that have made a peace of sorts with Israel.

Bangladesh is not, of course, the only country to prevent its citizens from traveling to Israel or denying entry to Israeli passport holders. A few days after the Bangladeshi decision, the Maldives—another Muslim country that enjoys close relations with Qatar—announced that Israelis would no longer be permitted to visit. None of these bans is likely to be lifted as long as Israel is at war with the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Iran’s regional proxies and the Iranian regime itself.

The ripple effects of that war—antisemitic violence in Western countries, cold-shouldering of Israel by countries without a direct stake in the conflict—will continue to be felt. None of that changes the plain fact that this remains a war that Israel must win.

The post ‘Valid For All Countries Except Israel’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

US, Iran Set for Second Round of Nuclear Talks as Iranian FM Warns Against ‘Unrealistic Demands’

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a deal could be reached during Saturday’s second round of nuclear negotiations in Rome if the United States does not make “unrealistic demands.”

In a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, Araghchi said that Washington showed “partial seriousness” during the first round of nuclear talks in Oman last week.

The Iranian top diplomat traveled to Moscow on Thursday to deliver a letter from Iran’s so-called Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, briefing Russian President Vladimir Putin on the ongoing nuclear talks with the White House.

“Their willingness to enter serious negotiations that address the nuclear issue only, without entering into other issues, can lead us towards constructive negotiations,” Araghchi said during the joint press conference in Moscow on Friday.

“As I have said before, if unreasonable, unrealistic and impractical demands are not made, an agreement is possible,” he continued.

Tehran has previously rejected halting its uranium enrichment program, insisting that the country’s right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, despite Washington’s threats of military actions, additional sanctions, and tariffs if an agreement is not reached to curb the country’s nuclear activities.

On Tuesday, US special envoy Steve Witkoff said that any deal with Iran must require the complete dismantling of its “nuclear enrichment and weaponization program” — reversing his earlier comments, in which he indicated that the White House would allow Tehran to enrich uranium to a 3.67 percent threshold for a “civil nuclear program.”

During the press conference, Araghchi also announced he would attend Saturday’s talks in Rome, explaining that negotiations with the US are being held indirectly due to recent threats and US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran — which aims to cut the country’s crude exports to zero and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“Indirect negotiations are not something weird and an agreement is within reach through this method,” Araghchi said.

He also indicated that Iran expects Russia to play a role in any potential agreement with Washington, noting that the two countries have held frequent and close consultations on Tehran’s nuclear program in the past.

“We hope Russia will play a role in a possible deal,” Araghchi said during the press conference.

As an increasingly close ally of Iran, Moscow could play a crucial role in Tehran’s nuclear negotiations with the West, leveraging its position as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and a signatory to a now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal that imposed limits on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018.

Since then, even though Tehran has denied wanting to develop a nuclear weapon, the UN’s nuclear watchdog – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – has warned that Iran has “dramatically” accelerated uranium enrichment to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level and enough to build six nuclear bombs.

During the press conference on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that “Russia is ready to facilitate the negotiation process between Iran and the US regarding Tehran’s nuclear program.”

Moscow has previously said that any military strike against Iran would be “illegal and unacceptable.”

Russia’s diplomatic role in the ongoing negotiations could also be important, as the country has recently solidified its growing partnership with the Iranian regime.

On Wednesday, Russia’s upper house of parliament ratified a 20-year strategic partnership agreement with Iran, strengthening military ties between the two countries.

Despite Tehran’s claims that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes rather than weapon development, Western states have said there is no “credible civilian justification” for the country’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”

The post US, Iran Set for Second Round of Nuclear Talks as Iranian FM Warns Against ‘Unrealistic Demands’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Reps. Dan Goldman and Chris Smith Issue Statement Condemning Shapiro Arson Attack As ‘Textbook Antisemitism’

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) holds a rally in support of US Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democratic presidential election campaign in Ambler, Pennsylvania, US, July 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Smith (D-NJ) issued a statement condemning the recent arson attack against Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) as a form of “textbook antisemitism.”

Governor Shapiro is the Governor of Pennsylvania and has nothing to do with Israel’s foreign policy, yet he was targeted as an American Jew by a radicalized extremist who blames the Governor for Israel’s actions. That is textbook antisemitism,” the statement read. 

Shapiro’s residence, the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, was set ablaze on Sunday morning, hours after the governor hosted a gathering to celebrate the first night of the Jewish holiday of Passover. Shapiro said that he, his wife, and his children were awakened by state troopers knocking on their door at 2 am. The governor and his family immediately evacuated the premises and were unscathed.

Goldman and Smith added that the arson attack against Shapiro serves as “a bitter reminder that persecution of Jews continues.” The duo claimed that they “strongly condemn this antisemitic violence” and called on the suspect to “be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

Pennsylvania State Police said that the suspect, Cody Balmer set fire to Shapiro’s residence over the alleged ongoing “injustices to the people of Palestine” and Shapiro’s  Jewish faith. 

According to an arrest warrant, Balmer called 911 prior to the attack and told emergency operators that he “will not take part in [Shapiro’s] plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people,” and demanded that the governor “stop having my friends killed.”

The suspect continued, telling operators, “Our people have been put through too much by that monster.”

Balmer later revealed to police that he planned to beat Shapiro with a sledgehammer if he encountered him after gaining access into his residence, according to authorities.

He was subsequently charged with eight crimes by authorities, including serious felonies such as attempted homicide, terrorism, and arson. The suspect faces potentially 100 years in jail. He has been denied bail. 

Shapiro, a practicing Jew, has positioned himself as a staunch supporter of Israel. In the days following Hamas’s brutal slaughter of roughly 1,200 people across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Shapiro issued statements condemning the Palestinian terrorist group and gave a speech at a local synagogue. The governor also ordered the US and Pennsylvania Commonwealth flags to fly at half-mast outside the state capitol to honor the victims. 

Shapiro’s strident support of the Jewish state in the wake of Oct. 7 also incensed many pro-Palestinian activists, resulting in the governor being dubbed “Genocide Josh” by far-left demonstrators. 

US Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) chimed in on the arson attack Thursday, urging the Justice Department to launch a federal investigation, claiming that the incident could be motivated by antisemitism. 

Schumer argued that the arson attack targeting Shapiro, who is Jewish, left the Pennsylvania governor’s family in “anguish” and warned that it could serve as an example of “rising antisemitic violence” within the United States. He stressed that a federal investigation and hate crime charges may be necessary to uphold the “fundamental values of religious freedom and public safety.”

Thus far, Shapiro has refused to blame the attack on antisemitism, despite the suspect’s alleged comments repudiating the governor over his support for Israel. The governor has stressed the importance of allowing prosecutors to determine whether the attack constitutes a hate crime.

The post Reps. Dan Goldman and Chris Smith Issue Statement Condemning Shapiro Arson Attack As ‘Textbook Antisemitism’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News