RSS
Most Russians Don’t Support Israel, Even as It Fights for Its Survival
Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi during a meeting in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 7, 2023. Photo: Sputnik/Sergei Bobylev/Pool via REUTERS
It is hard not to notice that the war Israel is waging, with the support of the United States and other allies in the Western bloc, against Iran’s terrorist alliance and its radical Islamist Arab proxies — Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and others — has its reflection in the ideological, political, and diplomatic discourse of post-Soviet conflicts, primarily the Russian-Ukrainian and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts.
This also introduces adjustments to the foreign policy stance of those USSR successor states that have various geopolitical interests in the Middle East.
A prime example in this regard is the Russian Federation, whose return as a key player in the second half of the 2000s became an important factor in the new configuration of political forces in the region. In Israel, the early Middle Eastern reflections of Russia’s bid to reclaim its status as a global superpower was met with mixed assessments. Optimists were inclined to believe that Moscow was returning to the Middle East not as a proponent of any particular ideology, but out of purely pragmatic considerations. Therefore, even if global geopolitical interests might, in principle, place Israel and Russia on opposite sides of the barricades, this would not necessarily lead to direct confrontation between the two countries, leaving ample room for cooperation beyond points of disagreement.
On the other hand, pessimists were convinced that Russia would sooner or later revert to the global political models and views of the late Soviet era — including seeing Israel as a potential adversary, given its strategic partnership with the United States.
Consequently, the dynamics of a potential intensification of US-Russian competition in the Middle East would ultimately shift almost any discrepancies between Jerusalem and Moscow from the category of “disagreements between partners” to that of “direct confrontation, leaving little room for compromise,” according to experts and staff from relevant Israeli, American, and Russian think tanks.
Initially, Moscow indeed attempted — with some success at times — to position itself as a party capable of cooperating with virtually all actors in the Middle Eastern conflict and even mediating between them.
However, after October 7, 2023, Russia explicitly supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian bloc as a whole. At the same time, the profile of the rapidly developing Russian-Israeli relations of the past decade sharply diminished, although Moscow and Jerusalem attempted to maintain a semblance of “business as usual”.
In other words, recent events appear to conclude the nearly 15 year debate between “Kremlin optimists” and “Kremlin pessimists.” The current situation fits into a normative framework characteristic of a substantial and influential segment of Russia’s foreign policy elites: Russia’s strategic partner in the region is Iran, which supplies critically important weapons for use on the Ukrainian front and secures Russia’s “southern flanks” in terms of geopolitical interests. This logic does not, however, extend to Russia’s view of Israel’s interests, as Israel is a strategic ally of Russia’s adversary — the United States. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that numerous practical steps and statements by Russian leaders have been widely interpreted as expressing solidarity with Iran’s Arab satellites, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
“Overnight” Shifts in Russian Public Discourse
The Russian public’s response has closely mirrored the foreign policy positions of the Russian political establishment, shaped largely by state-controlled information channels, as outlined in Part 1 of this article.
According to one of the earliest sociological surveys conducted in the USSR — though not fully representative, it provided some insight into the effectiveness of Soviet propaganda and the internal and external policies of Soviet leadership — Israel was among the top five enemies of the USSR, along with the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and China.
This survey, conducted by Professor B. Grushin in the late 1960s, highlighted these perceptions. However, after the collapse of the USSR and a shift in foreign policy, attitudes toward Israel appeared to change drastically. Regular sociological measurements by the reputable Yuri Levada Center in Moscow, beginning in the late 1980s, indicated that in the absence of state-driven anti-Israel or anti-Semitic sentiment, Russian public opinion toward Israel was predominantly neutral (“similar to other countries in the region”) or mildly positive.
From the mid-1990s and over the next 25 years, approximately 60% of respondents consistently reported a lack of hostility or animosity toward Israel. About one-fifth of those surveyed expressed positive sentiments or interest in Israel, while an average of only 1 in 10 respondents indicated a negative view of the country. Isolated years marked by “spikes” in anti-Israel or “negatively neutral” attitudes — such as during the 2006 Lebanon War, noted in the first part of our article—were unfortunate exceptions.
Despite this generally neutral or favorable stance, research from this and other sociological agencies found that a considerable legacy of Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda persisted in the public consciousness, particularly among older individuals, residents of rural areas, and those with lower levels of education and income.
Superficially, the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict seems to have little effect on current levels of anti-Semitism in Russia or public attitudes toward Israel. Only 3% of Russians closely follow Middle Eastern political news or actively seek related information, primarily those who have traveled to Israel or have relatives or close friends there. Another 17% follow the situation “from time to time,” while the majority remain indifferent, uninformed, or simply do not follow developments in the region. Three-quarters of respondents stated they do not support either side in the conflict, while 10% expressed sympathy for both. Among the remaining respondents, support was almost evenly split: 8% sided with Israelis, and 7% with Arabs. This neutrality is gradually increasing, as previous surveys showed support levels at 12% and 10%, respectively.
Nevertheless, anti-Zionism, though less overt than in the Soviet era, remains an “acceptable” expression of latent antisemitism among certain groups. This includes belief in Zionist conspiracies and notions of Jewish plans for global dominance. “Traces of this ideological indoctrination and propaganda, along with a rejection of liberal values and democracy,” note the authors of a 2020 study by the Levada Center, commissioned by the Russian Jewish Congress, “are still evident today in attitudes toward Israel and Jewish emigration.”
The reversion of Russian leadership to Soviet-era narratives on the Arab-Israeli conflict has notably shifted public sentiment. In an October 2024 Levada Center survey, respondents had a favorable view of China (81%), Brazil (55%), Turkey (52%), and Iran (50%), with only 27% expressing positive views of Israel — comparable to views of France (20%), the UN (19%), the EU (16%), the US (16%), and Ukraine (14%).
This is a marked contrast from 2013, when respondents viewed Israel as a friendly state. In September 2018, 52% of Russians surveyed by the Public Opinion Foundation also viewed Israel as friendly, with only 16% holding an opposing view.
Who Is Responsible for the Middle Eastern Conflict?
There is little doubt that the current decline in public sympathy for Israel stems from the official rhetoric and stance of Russian authorities. This trend has had a noticeable impact on Russian public opinion.
A survey conducted by the Levada Center in late October 2023 revealed that while two-thirds (66%) of respondents did not support either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, those who sympathized with the Palestinian Arabs (in this case, Hamas) outnumbered those sympathetic to Israel by 3.5 times. Support for Israel was more common among members of the “internet party” — younger people aged 25-39 and residents of major cities.
In general, compared to data from 2007–2010, the share of supporters of Palestinian Arabs in the conflict with Israel has doubled (from 9–14% to 21%), while support for the Jewish State has similarly halved, dropping to 6%.
Nevertheless, Russians largely consider the United States and NATO countries to be primarily responsible for ongoing bloodshed and instability in the Middle East — a view shaped by both Soviet-era and current Russian state propaganda. The belief that the US and NATO bear the main responsibility is most prevalent among older respondents (44% of those aged 55 and older), low-income respondents (44%), those who believe the country is on the right track (40%), and those who rely on television for information (44%).
However, compared to the 2023 survey, support for this viewpoint has dropped by nearly a quarter — from 45% to 38% — largely due to a nearly twofold increase (from 12% to 22%) in those blaming Israel entirely. The proportion attributing responsibility to Hamas and Palestinian extremists has remained steady over the past year, with less than 10% of respondents holding this view. Meanwhile, the percentage assigning blame to Iran and its allies, or to Russia, hovered around or below the margin of error.
Some demographic divides are present, though not pronounced, along lines of gender, age, political outlook, and socioeconomic status. Men (27%), respondents aged 55 and older, and those who believe “things in Russia are going in the right direction” (25%) are more likely to hold Israel responsible for the continuation and escalation of the conflict. On the other hand, younger respondents under 24 (13%), more affluent respondents (10% of those able to afford durable goods), and those who believe the country is on the wrong track (13%) are more likely to attribute responsibility to Hamas and Palestinian Arabs.
Interest within Russian society in Israel’s conflict with Arab terrorist groups has noticeably waned over the year since the beginning of the IDF’s “Operation Iron Swords” in Gaza. While over 80% of Russians surveyed by the Levada Center in September 2024 stated that they were aware of Israel’s war with Hamas, only one in five respondents (19%) reported closely following the developments — almost half the figure from October 2023 (32%). Nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents said they had “heard something but without details,” which is only slightly higher than the previous year (56%). Those who admitted to hearing about the conflict “for the first time during the survey” nearly doubled, reaching 18% in September 2024 compared to 11% in October 2023.
In other words, Russian public engagement with Israel’s fight against Iranian-backed Arab terror — and the Middle Eastern conflict more broadly — remains limited. The “television party,” which represents a significant portion of Russian society, continues to follow official narratives. Should a direct confrontation between Russia and Israel occur in the Middle East, Russian society is likely to accept it with the same “understanding” that many Russians displayed toward the military aggression against Ukraine.
That said, another perspective also exists, such as among the dwindling number of “optimists” in Israel who argue that the differences, or even sharp disagreements, between Israel and Russia on various issues do not reflect a fundamental conflict of interests between the two nations but rather the current global context of Russia’s interests. They believe that if the context shifts or Israel’s role within it changes, so too could the state of Russian-Israeli relations — and, with it, Russian public sentiment.
In any case, if this shift does happen, it likely won’t occur until after the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have concluded — something that does not appear imminent.
Prof. Vladimir (Ze’ev) Khanin lectures in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and is Academic Chairman of the Institute for Euro-Asian Jewish Studies in Herzliya, Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Most Russians Don’t Support Israel, Even as It Fights for Its Survival first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel
Mike Huckabee looks on as Donald Trump reacts during a campaign event at the Drexelbrook Catering and Event Center, in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, US, Oct. 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
American Jewish organizations were quick to react to US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he would choose former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to be the next US ambassador to Israel after he assumes office in January.
“Mike has been a great public servant, governor, and leader in faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about peace in the Middle East!” Trump wrote in his announcement.
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has long been a vocal pro-Israel voice. He has repudiated the anti-Israel protests that erupted in the wake of Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7 and criticized incumbent US President Joe Biden for sympathizing with anti-Israel protesters during his speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC). The incoming ambassador also lambasted the anti-Israel encampments at elite universities, stating that there should be “outrage” over the targeting and mistreatment of Jewish college students.
Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), posted on X on Tuesday that his organization “looks forward to working with Gov. Huckabee and newly appointed Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff to strengthen the US-Israel relationship, bolster Israel-diaspora relations, and promote strong connections between American Jewry and Israel.”
Other Jewish communal organizations, such as the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League, have so far not made statements.
The Republican Jewish Committee (RJC) said it was “thrilled” with the choice. “As a man of deep faith,” the RJC wrote, “we know Governor Huckabee’s abounding love of Israel and its people is second to none.”
It continued, “As the Jewish state continues to fight an existential war for survival against Iran and its terrorist proxies, Governor Huckabee will represent America’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security with distinction.”
On the other side, however, the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) called Huckabee “utterly unqualified for this role” and argued that “his extremist views with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not further the national security interests of the United States or advance prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
Huckabee told Israel’s Army Radio in his first interview since the announcement of his ambassadorship that “of course” the annexation of the West Bank is a possibility during Trump’s second presidential term.
“Unfortunately, when it comes to the US-Israel relationship,” the JDCA concluded, “Donald Trump will continue to only be motivated by his own narrow self-interest, and we’re deeply concerned about what that means for the United States and Israel.”
J Street also opposed the choice, writing in a statement that “Huckabee, a right-wing, evangelical minister with a long history of championing settlement expansion, annexation, and a radical ‘Greater Israel’ agenda, holds principles and espouses views that — if now implemented — would shatter the foundations on which a healthy and strong US-Israel relationship has been built over the past 75 years.”
J Street on Monday urged the Biden administration to withhold offensive weapons from Israel as part of a partial arms embargo, arguing that the United States needs to hold Israel accountable for alleged human rights “violations” before Trump takes office.
Huckabee has taken positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict considered further to the right than most American Jews and politicians. The former governor has defended Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank, acknowledging the Jewish people’s ties to the land dating back to the ancient world.
“There is no such thing as the West Bank — it’s Judea and Samaria,” Huckabee has said, referring to the biblical names for the area. “There is no such thing as settlements — they’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.”
Huckabee has also argued, including during his 2008 US presidential campaign, that any future Palestinian state should be created from land in Arab countries, rather than from territory that Israel captured in 1967 during the Six-Day War.
The post American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Accused of Prolonging Investigation of Pro-Israel Professor
Israeli-American activist and Columbia University Professor Shai Davidai speaks at a pro-Israel rally, nearly one year after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack in southern Israel, in the Manhattan borough of New York City, US, Oct. 6, 2024. Photo: Stephani Spindel via Reuters Connect
Columbia University is being accused of prolonging a disciplinary investigation of Jewish professor Shai Davidai, who has been an outspoken supporter of Israel and critic of the school’s handling of antisemitism on campus, to destroy his reputation and academic career, The Algemeiner has learned.
The charge is coming from Davidai himself, an Israeli-born academic who has become one of the most famous pro-Israel advocates in the country. His renown has carried unintended consequences, however — among them, according to Davidai and others, the negative scrutiny of the Columbia University administration.
“On February 8, I was notified by Ms. Sarah Kinney, the Associate Director of the Office of EOAA [Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action], that I am being investigated due to a Title IX complaint. Ms Kinney refused to share the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complainants with me and my lawyers, thus denying me the right to face my accusers and impeding my ability to defend myself and prove my innocence,” Davidai wrote in a letter to high-level school officials — including interim president Katrina Armstrong and others — which was shared with The Algemeiner on Tuesday.
He continued, “I would like to remind you that the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action is required to send updates every 30 days to the targets of their investigations. Throughout the entire investigation, the office of EOAA has failed to follow it’s own procedures, thus denying me the due process that I believe is required of a federally-funded university … Unfortunately Columbia’s failure to conclude this investigation has created irreparable harm to my reputation in traditional and social media. I am thus emailing you with a demand to immediately bring this investigation to an end and publicly clear my name.”
Columbia launched an investigation of Davidai in February, several months after he described then-university president Minouche Shafik as a “coward” for coddling pro-Hamas activists who, after the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel, waged a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and violence to demoralize Jewish students and pressure the university into boycotting Israel. The immediate cause cited for the inquiry, as told to The Algemeiner by the professor, was a series of spurious accusations that his denunciations of mass casualty events inspired by jihadist extremism equated to racism against Muslims and minorities of color.
Undeterred by what appeared to Davidai and his lawyers as a cynical attempt to use the disciplinary system to silence a political dissident and shroud him in suspicion, the professor continued advocating for Israel’s existence and Jewish civil rights all the way up to the first anniversary of Oct. 7, a day which saw dueling demonstrations held by pro-Hamas and pro-Israel students across the campus. It also saw a fateful exchange of words between Davidai and a Columbia administrator, Cas Holloway, whom the professor reproached for permitting pro-Hamas students to use the Oct. 7 anniversary for celebrating the terrorist organization’s atrocities, which included wantonly murdering Israelis, sexually assaulting Jewish women, and kidnapping over 200 hostages.
Columbia and Davidai’s legal team interpreted what transpired between the professor and Holloway differently. Davidai defended his approach as a genuine expression of grief and concern for the welfare of Jewish students, while Columbia felt that an unmoored professor had engaged in “threats of intimidation, harassment, or other threatening behavior.” Following the incident, Columbia “temporarily” banished him from campus, a severe disciplinary sanction which prevents him from attending university functions and accessing his office.
Now, months after the initial investigation and over a month since his being banned from campus, Davidai alleges that due process has been intentionally slowed to a lumbering pace and, in some instances, denied.
“Never in my life had I imagined that Columbia University would stoop so low as to engage in Kafkaesque procedures in order to retaliate against my speaking out for the Jewish people and against support for anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, and anti-American terrorism on campus,” he continued in Tuesday’s letter. “As an employee of the university, I would appreciate a reply, if only to be acknowledged for my humanity.”
On Wednesday, Columbia University spokeswoman Samantha Slater told The Algemeiner that “we are not going to comment on ongoing investigations.”
In October, following the professor’s suspension, Slater said, “Columbia has consistently and continually respected Assistant Professor Davidai’s right to free speech and to express his views. His freedom of speech has not been limited and is not being limited now. Columbia, however, does not tolerate threats of intimidation, harassment, or other threatening behavior by its employees. Because Assistant Professor Davidai repeatedly harassed and intimidated university employees in violation of university policy, we have temporarily limited his access to campus while he undertakes appropriate training on our policies governing the behavior of our employees.”
This latest clash between Davidai and Columbia University comes during what has been widely described as an unprecedented “crisis” at the school which, since Oct. 7, 2023, has undermined its credibility with the public and set off a slew of congressional investigations and lawsuits.
In April, an anti-Zionist group occupied Hamilton Hall, forcing then-president hafik to call on the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for help, a decision she hesitated to make and which led to over 108 arrests. However, according to documents shared in August by the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 18 of the 22 students slapped with disciplinary charges for their role in the incident remain in “good standing” despite the university’s earlier pledge to expel them. Another 31 of 35 who were suspended for illegally occupying the campus with a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” remain in good standing too.
In August, Shafik resigned as president of the university, and just two months prior, in June, its legal counsel reached an out of court settlement with a student who accused administrators of neglecting their obligation to foster a safe learning environment during the final weeks of last spring semester. While stopping short of admitting guilt, the settlement virtually conceded to the plaintiff her argument that the campus was unsafe for Jewish students, agreeing to provide her and others “Safe Passage Liaisons” tasked with protecting them from racist abuse and violence.
Amid this cluster of scandals and conflagrations, Davidai has allegedly received a lion’s share of the university’s attention, revealing, he has alleged, “the depths of [Columbia’s] hostility towards its Jewish community.” He has since retained counsel to guard his rights and prevent being bulldozed by one of the wealthiest and powerful universities in the world. Despite his troubles, however, he has said that Columbia is redeemable.
“I do this because I love teaching and I love research. And because I truly believe that Columbia can become better,” he said. “For me, Cas Holloway is ruining Columbia’s reputation. He is the anathema of everything that’s right about Columbia, its educational practice, research, and openness to everyone. And I don’t know if he’s a good person or a bad person, but his inaction, his indifference shows that he’s OK with ruining everything that higher education should be standing for.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Accused of Prolonging Investigation of Pro-Israel Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
American-Israeli Olympic Gold Medalist Amit Elor Says She Faces ‘Cruel, Vicious Antisemitism’ for Israel Support
Amit Elor of the United States celebrates winning gold against Meerim Zhumanazarova of Kyrgyzstan in the women’s freestyle 68kg wrestling finals of the 2024 Paris Olympics on Aug. 6, 2024. Photo: Reuters/Arlette Bashizi
American-Israeli wrestler and Olympic gold medalist Amit Elor talked about facing severe backlash for her outspoken support for Israel to a crowd of thousands of people who attended a pro-Israel rally at Nationals Park in Washington, DC, on Sunday.
At the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, Elor, 20, won the gold medal in the women’s freestyle wrestling 68-kg finals. She became the youngest wrestler in the history of the US to win a gold at the Olympics and a first-time Olympic medal winner. The win extended Elor’s five-year winning streak, and she also became the third woman from the US to win an Olympic gold medal in wrestling, as well as the youngest woman from the US to win any medal in wrestling at the Olympics.
Elor addressed the crowd on Sunday at the pro-Israel rally “Stand Together — An Event of Unity, Strength, and Resilience.” She began by talking about being “so proud” of her Israeli heritage and her connection to the Jewish state. Both her parents are Israeli, and Elor spent her summers in Israel as a youngster, visiting her grandmother in Ashkelon. She also trained with young Israeli wrestlers during those summers in Israel, and said they welcomed her with open arms.
The athlete told the audience that following the Oct. 7 Hamas-led terrorist attacks in Israel, she voiced support on social media for the Jewish state and received a lot of online hate for it. “There was no question it was what I had to do,” Elor said of publicly speaking out in support of Israel, “but I wasn’t prepared for all the hate I’d get for it.”
“Cruel messages, vicious antisemitism,” she said. “It’s not always easy to be publicly proudly Jewish on the internet. That took strength too.”
Elor further noted that although she competed in the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris for Team USA, she felt like she had the support of Israel throughout the entire competition.
“Just like when I was a kid in Ashkelon, Israel embraced me again. I wrestled for Team USA. I can hardly even speak Hebrew. And yet, I learned that the whole country had my back,” she explained. “Israeli TV channels came to interview me. Israeli followers cheered for me on social media, and when I won the gold medal, the Israeli Olympic team was the first to invite me to dinner.”
“When I think of all those friendships, all those messages of encouragement, it reminds me that there is strength in unity,” she added. “I want other young Americans to know: Yes, the hate we experience for speaking out hurts, but we must speak out anyway. Because when each of us raises our voice; when we are brave; when we stand up to be counted; and when we do it together, we all become even stronger. As they say in Israel today — Yachad Ninatze’ach, together we will win!”
Sunday’s pro-Israel rally including speeches by a number of political figures, including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, US Sen. Joni Erst (R-IA), and and US Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC). US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to the crowd virtually. The Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations hosted the event at Nationals Park, which is home to the Washington Nationals baseball team, in partnership with dozens of other national and local organizations.
Grammy-nominated Israeli artist Idan Raichel was the headlining act with his band, the Idan Raichel Project, and the event also featured performances by Hasidic singer Shulem Lemmer, who led a prayer for soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces, John Ondrasik of Five for Fighting, Palestinian artist Luai Ali, violinist Ada Pasternak, and accordion virtuoso Cory Pesaturo.
Jewish stand-up comedian and actress Tiffany Haddish headlined the event. In her opening remarks, she talked about her personal journey to discovering she has Jewish roots and having a sense of “family” among Jews, despite their different backgrounds.
“When I first started working bar and bat mitzvahs years ago as a hype dancer, I never imagined that I’d be standing here today. But that’s the beautiful thing about life and being Jewish: the path isn’t always straight, but it leads home,” said the Emmy and Grammy-winning comedian.
“Judaism embraces all of us — every background, every color, every story,” she added. She then discussed the reason for the gathering in Washington’s Nationals Park — to show support for Israel amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war and the 101 hostages who remain in Hamas captivity, and to unite against antisemitism plaguing Jews around the world.
“Right now we are living through one of the hardest chapters of our story,” Haddish added. “But like so many of you, I learned early that life’s hardest moments can lead to our greatest strengths. From foster care to homelessness, to finding my truth, both as an artist and as a Jew, that’s why what we’re doing here matters.”
“When I discovered my Jewish roots, I learned about all these different kinds of Jews – Israelis, Americans, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox … we are like the original extended family complete with the arguments about who makes the best matzah balls,” she said. “But that’s the beauty of it. Unity isn’t about agreeing on everything. It’s about standing together when it matters most and right now, it matters more than ever.”
The post American-Israeli Olympic Gold Medalist Amit Elor Says She Faces ‘Cruel, Vicious Antisemitism’ for Israel Support first appeared on Algemeiner.com.