RSS
The Biggest Victim in Today’s Election Is Jewish Unity
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump points towards Democratic presidential nominee and US Vice President Kamala Harris, during a presidential debate hosted by ABC in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
No matter who wins today’s election, the biggest casualty for the Jewish community will be unity. We allowed ourselves to be pulled into a partisan game, where non-Jewish voices — opportunists on both sides — defined which party is “more antisemitic,” leading us to turn on each other. The only people who win from Jewish disunity are antisemites.
We must remember that we are a people apart. We might be Democrats or Republicans — but only as long as these parties allow us to remain. Both parties contain elements that don’t see Jews as “real” members of their ranks. At any moment, the fringes of each side could pull the mainstream in their direction, and we will find ourselves either shown the door or quietly made to feel unwelcome.
To be clear, the Democratic Party is not “The Squad,” and the Republican Party does not believe in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s “Jewish Space Lasers.” The parties are more than their loudest extremes. But we have to face the fact that these factions hold influence, and they can pull the broader party platform in directions that aren’t always comfortable — or safe — for us. We can argue over the extent to which these views are tolerated in each party, and we can vote accordingly.
By “unity,” I don’t mean that we should all vote the same way or ignore real issues on either side. I mean that we need to recognize that neither party will always represent what is good for the Jews. Both will court us, both will insist that the other side is a threat, and both will try to lock us into alliances where their interests come first. All our alliances are marriages of convenience.
Take our alliance with Evangelical Christians, for instance. Many of us are fully aware that their pro-Israel stance aligns with our interests today, but this alliance is not without strings. Evangelicals often support Israel because they see it as central to their eschatology, not always because of a genuine affinity with the Jewish people. We are allies — until the day our priorities no longer align. Going “all in” on their agenda is a risk we cannot afford.
This election cycle has exposed just how fractured we are and how much our alliances need rethinking. The old alliances — built on broad social causes, unions, and civil rights movements — are in tatters. We are finding ourselves increasingly pushed to the sidelines of causes we once led. We are not Democrats or Republicans, conservative or liberal. In the end, we are Jews, a people apart, and we must do what it takes to survive.
A few years ago, I spoke with an author who argued that the Jewish community needs to abandon “Tikkun Olam” — the notion that we should dedicate ourselves to repairing the world. His stance was that we should be concerned, first and foremost, with helping other Jews. At the time, I dismissed his viewpoint. As American Jews, we have always taken pride in our sense of justice and duty to broader society. Our pursuit of Tikkun Olam has often been the driver behind our roles in social justice, union organizing, and countless other efforts that uplifted not just ourselves, but all Americans.
Yet here we are, finding ourselves ousted from some of the very movements we helped to shape. The calls for justice are still loud, but our voices are increasingly unwelcome. Now, I am beginning to see the wisdom in that author’s argument.
In this climate, we need a different rallying point. We are not Tikkun Olam and we are not MAGA. We should be wary of both sides’ accusations of antisemitism, for neither side truly has our best interests at heart.
This isn’t to say we need to be centrists. Rather, we need to look both ways, as my mother used to tell me, before crossing the street. We need to hold onto the knowledge that we are a people with a long history, one that has outlasted empires and nations. We need each other to continue that history, no matter the political divisions that try to rip us apart.
Somehow, we allowed these divisions to harden. We forgot that we are one people. Instead, we have looked at our fellow Jews as enemies. We’ve resorted to name-calling, hurling words like “kapo” and “fascist” at each other. Friendships have been broken, families split, and fingers pointed in anger.
Yes, we’re Jews. We argue. Debate is in our DNA. But this has gone beyond debate. Our community’s infighting has provided a gift to our enemies, who look at us — splintered and vulnerable — and smile.
So, when exactly have Jews ever been united? I can think of once within my lifetime. When I was around 12 years old in 1976, my family hosted a violinist named Boris Brant. We lived in Battle Creek, Michigan, at the time, and he was a recent immigrant from the Soviet Union. Brant was one of the Soviet refusniks — Jews who had been denied the right to leave the USSR. He’d been a prominent violin professor in Odessa, but applying to emigrate had cost him his career. He left behind everything he knew to come here and start over as a free man.
His arrival in the US was part of a larger movement. By the 1970s, American Jews of all stripes were rallying around the cause of Soviet Jewry, working to free Jews who wanted to leave. This advocacy led to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which tied US-Soviet trade deals to the Soviet Union’s willingness to allow Jewish emigration. If they wanted favorable trade, they had to respect basic rights. This was one of the rare times that Jews, across all backgrounds, got behind a single cause.
Jackson-Vanik was groundbreaking. Orthodox, Reform, secular, left, right — everyone joined in. Synagogues held rallies, youth groups raised awareness, and Jewish families like mine opened their homes to tell the stories of Soviet Jews. For once, we felt like one community, and the message was simple: Jewish freedom was non-negotiable.
No matter who wins today, we have a serious antisemitism problem in this country. It is a problem that will take all our talents and efforts to address. So much emotion and time is wasted on blaming our fellow Jews for a problem that is not of our own making. We are a talented, brilliant, driven, creative, clever, stubborn people. Let’s focus all that energy on fighting antisemitism — not one another.
Howard Lovy is a Michigan-based author, book editor, and journalist who specializes in Jewish issues. He is currently working on a book, From Outrage to Action: A Practical Guide to Fighting Antisemitism. His novel, Found and Lost: The Jake and Cait Story, will be released in 2025. You can find him on his website or on X.
The post The Biggest Victim in Today’s Election Is Jewish Unity first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report
Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.