Uncategorized
Project Esther has shaped Trump’s antisemitism strategy. The Shofar Report is a liberal Jewish response.
A group of Jewish leaders are fed up with right-wing efforts to combat antisemitism. So they created their own strategy.
The Shofar Report, released this week by the liberal-leaning Jewish group Nexus Project, is a new guide to fighting antisemitism that its authors say is intended to curb the strategies of the Trump administration. The new report was written explicitly as a rebuttal to Project Esther, a 2024 blueprint against antisemitism written by the conservative Heritage Foundation that outlined many policies now undertaken by the Trump administration, particularly on campuses.
“Project Esther was not a strategy for fighting antisemitism,” Jonathan Jacoby, the Nexus Project’s president, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an interview. “Project Esther is the Heritage Foundation’s tool for implementing Project 2025” — referring to a now-infamous policy blueprint for a second Trump term.
What Trump and his supporters are actually doing, Jacoby said, is “weaponizing antisemitism.” Conversely, he said, that is bad for the Jews: “Weaponizing antisemitism breeds antisemitism. Weaponizing antisemitism undermines efforts to confront antisemitism.”
In response, the Shofar Report — released during the High Holidays in an effort to mimic a shofar blast as a wake-up call to Jews — calls for policymakers to wind back the clock. Many of its own recommendations for fighting antisemitism involve undoing Trump’s handiwork, along with some new proposals. Slashing university funding, arresting and deporting student protesters, blocking student visas and tying synagogue security funding to immigration enforcement are all steps the new report says must be reversed to properly fight antisemitism.
Its central message: that fighting antisemitism requires fighting for democratic institutions and embracing traditional liberal coalition-building. Universities, civil rights law, and immigration rights all must be protected in order to safeguard Jews within a liberal democracy, the authors argue.
That could prove a challenge, as many Jews have felt scorned by a lack of allyship from such coalitions and institutions after Oct. 7. Some of the more combative Jewish groups, such as Betar US and Canary Mission, not only support Trump’s policies but are actively aiding them by naming pro-Palestinian protesters for the administration to target.
Jacoby acknowledged that Jewish appetites for coalition-building are lower now. But, he insisted, “Those coalitions are what we need to be strong in order to fight antisemitism.”
“Jewish safety is of utmost importance and must be protected,” he said. “There’s no substitute for that. We need to build on that, and understand how we can create an infrastructure, a civil and community infrastructure, that supports that, and that complements that. And that’s where coalitions come in, and that’s where institutions come in, and that’s where education comes in.”
The report’s authors speak highly of the Biden administration’s own, now-abandoned plan for countering antisemitism after Oct. 7, which had identified the problem in terms of civil rights. They seek a return to what Jacoby called a “precedent for listening to Jewish voices about this” after Project Esther, the majority of whose contributors were not Jewish.
Contributors to the Shofar Report include Amy Spitalnick, head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; J Street CEO Jeremy Ben-Ami and UCLA professor Dov Waxman; New Israel Fund president David N. Myers; prominent Jewish academic Lila Corwin Berman; Hannah Rosenthal, a former U.S. envoy for combatting antisemitism under the Obama administration; and author Emily Tamkin.
Among other recommendations are a push for rollbacks on Trump’s antisemitism policies. The report calls for education funding, student visas and civil rights enforcement to be restored; for the administration to stop accusing nonprofits and NGOs of supporting terror; and for nonprofit security grants, which fund synagogue security plans, to not be “beholden to an administration’s ideological whims on issues like diversity or immigration.”
In this respect, the Shofar Report is following what appears to be the majority of American Jewish opinion. According to recent polling by Ipsos, the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Rochester, 72% of American Jews believe Trump is using antisemitism as an “excuse” to punish universities, and two-thirds don’t believe antisemitism justifies cutting university funding.
“As Jewish Americans struggle with hatred, even alienation from the Israeli state, they discover a slippery president who exploits a true danger,” that study’s authors, James Druckman and Bruce Fuller, wrote in an op-ed this week for the Chicago Tribune. “Trump erodes the very institutions that have long provided safety, learning and upward mobility for Jewish families — all the while claiming that he’s protecting Jews.”
Not all of the Shofar recommendations are critical of Trump. An essay by Waxman and Ben-Ami backs the president’s 20-point plan to secure Gaza, dismantle Hamas and extend its ceasefire with Israel (while also urging the administration to end “blank-check” funding for Israel and to stop supporting far-right parties around the world). That, too, is in keeping with what some Jewish leaders who are critical of Trump have said about his Gaza plan in recent days.
The report’s authors also push for ideas such as media literacy programs, Holocaust and Jewish history education, “off-ramp” programs to help people leave extremist movements, and combatting disinformation with the aid of social media companies (the QAnon and Great Replacement conspiracy theories in particular).
Though light on specifics, Jacoby said the report would ideally lead to a broader effort from Jewish groups and institutions to articulate new visions for fighting antisemitism while upholding liberal democracies. He was encouraged, he said, by recent signs of Jewish pushback to Trump, including Jewish presidents of top universities rejecting a federal funding “compact” that critics said would have compromised academic freedom in order to restore grants pulled over purported antisemitism concerns.
He further predicted that the FBI’s recent severing of longstanding ties with the Anti-Defamation League would also galvanize the Jewish community: “I think that American Jews see the danger in these kinds of policies.”
There remains the question of how much influence such a report can have. As long as Trump and Republicans remain in power, the Shofar Report’s recommendations and persuasions will be swimming directly against today’s political currents. Jacoby lamented that properly dealing with antisemitism was not “a bipartisan issue,” but remains optimistic “that it will become one.”
“I would say there’s more work to be done,” he said. “Each of these recommendations needs to be translated into more concrete and more specific ideas for action, and our hope is that they will be over the coming year, and actually over the coming years as the political landscape shifts.”
He added, “I think this is the beginning. I think we need to take more steps to make this more concrete. And we will, and so will other organizations. … I think we are a guiding force.”
—
The post Project Esther has shaped Trump’s antisemitism strategy. The Shofar Report is a liberal Jewish response. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Pakistan-Afghanistan Clashes Highlight Limits of Saudi-Pakistani Defense Pact: Experts
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif embrace each other on the day they sign a defense agreement, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 17, 2025. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Amid rising tensions along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, experts say the newly signed Saudi-Pakistani mutual defense pact is largely symbolic and unlikely to alter the regional balance of power.
On Friday, Afghanistan accused Pakistan of carrying out airstrikes on its territory, shattering a temporary ceasefire after days of escalating clashes that marked the deadliest fighting along the border in years.
“The truce has been broken and Afghanistan will retaliate,” a spokesman for the Taliban-led Afghan government said in a statement, announcing that Pakistan had “broken the ceasefire and bombed three locations in Paktika,” a province in the country’s eastern region.
Earlier this week, the two nations had agreed to a 48-hour ceasefire after border clashes killed dozens of troops.
The conflict erupted after Pakistan accused its neighbor of harboring and supporting terrorist groups responsible for attacks on its territory, while Afghanistan accused Pakistan of violating its airspace and carrying out strikes in the country’s eastern regions.
The fragile ceasefire came after appeals from major regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, with which nuclear-armed Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact last month, further solidifying a decades-long security partnership.
According to experts, the recent regional escalation shows how the Saudi-Pakistan partnership is largely symbolic, offering diplomatic backing and condemnation but unlikely to be tested in practice.
“”The recent Pakistan-Afghanistan clashes are unlikely to lead to invocation of the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact,” Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based think tank, told The Algemeiner.
He explained that the threat from Afghanistan, while politically serious, is not strong enough to push Pakistan to seek support from a third party, since the country is far stronger than the hostile forces along the contentious border.
“The Saudis, as central players in the Islamic world, will also want to be seen as welcoming Afghanistan’s gradual rehabilitation,” Brown said, noting that even if the pact were invoked, it is unlikely they would want to intervene in the conflict.
More broadly, he argued that this recent escalation underscores the limits of the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, emphasizing that “most of the challenges that both countries face do not rise to the level of war between states.”
“”The possible war scenarios that do exist — Pakistan with India, Saudi Arabia with Iran — are not ones in which the other party to the pact would want to get involved, and it is inconceivable that Pakistan is offering a nuclear guarantee to the Saudis,” Brown told The Algemeiner.
Pakistan has repeatedly argued that its nuclear weapons are intended solely as a deterrent against India.
As the only nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority nation with the Islamic world’s largest army, Pakistan’s newly signed defense pact has raised questions about shifts in Middle East power and regional dynamics.
“”The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,” the Pakistani Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement following the signing of the pact.
While no further details have been disclosed, the partnership reportedly “encompasses all military means,” ranging from armed forces and nuclear cooperation to intelligence sharing.
Pakistan has even openly declared that it “”will make available” its nuclear program to Saudi Arabia if needed.
However, experts maintain that Pakistan’s ability to provide a nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia is dubious, as its longest-range missile cannot reach most potential threats to the country.
“The deal’s military value appears negligible beyond its symbolic photo-op,” Brown told The Algemeiner. “Pakistan lacks the capability to project power over 2,600 miles to Saudi Arabia.”
The pact is also designed to strengthen Saudi Arabia’s long-term defense autonomy, with defense industry collaboration, technology transfer, and military co-production and training, among other key initiatives.
Although the Saudi-Pakistani relationship has long been close, Brown explained that mutual support between the two nations has faced significant limitations.
“This new mutual defense pact is likely to remain a symbolic agreement, with its main applicability in nonbelligerent arenas, such as training and procurement,” he told The Algemiener.
Experts have also noted that the new pact could heighten regional tensions, strengthening Saudi Arabia’s defenses against Iran and its allies while also signaling its strategic posture toward Israel.
Yet, Brown argued that it makes little sense to suggest the pact is directed at Israel, given there is no realistic prospect of conflict between the Jewish state and either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, whereas Iran remains far more active against both countries.
Uncategorized
An attack on Israeli soccer fans last year was dubbed a ‘pogrom.’ Could it happen again?
When fans of the soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv were assaulted in the streets of Amsterdam after a game last November, the violence drew comparisons to pogroms. It even prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dispatch rescue planes to evacuate Israeli citizens.
Now, once again there are fears of a repeat outbreak of violence, this time over a match in Birmingham, England.
Local police reportedly requested supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv be kept away from the match against the English team Aston Villa, classifying the sporting event as a “high risk” threat to public safety. On Thursday, authorities told Israeli fans they would be banned from attending.
But after that move sparked accusations of antisemitism, the British government said it is doing “everything in its power” to reverse the decision and let Israeli fans buy tickets.
“This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer posted to X. “The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”
What happened at the game in Amsterdam?
The day before a November 2024 game against the Dutch team AFC Ajax, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans vandalized a taxi and burned a Palestinian flag, police said.
After the game, groups of men on scooters roamed the streets looking for Israeli fans, beating and kicking them and throwing fireworks, police said. At least five Israelis were hospitalized, and more than 60 people were arrested. Authorities uncovered WhatsApp and Telegram messages prior to the attacks urging a “Jew hunt.”
Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema called the attacks “antisemitic hit-and-run squads.” Others drew Holocaust comparisons, with Netanyahu noting the assaults took place near the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
“We failed the Jewish community of the Netherlands during World War II, and last night we failed again,” King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands said the morning after the attacks.
Days later, protesters set fire to a tram car in Amsterdam while shouting “Free Palestine” and “Kanker Joden,” or “cancer Jews.”
Israel’s growing isolation
Fallout over Gaza in the world of international sports suggests just how perilous Israel’s international standing has become.
Earlier this week, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that Israel would be barred from competing at the gymnastics world championship in Indonesia this weekend. The court said it had no control over Indonesia’s decision to deny Israeli athletes visas, which was made amid outcry over Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
At a September cycling race in Spain, the presence of an Israeli team drew thousands of protesters, forcing the race to end 31 miles short of the finish line.
Meanwhile, the International Federation of Muaythai Associations in August banned the display of the Israeli flag and the playing of Israel’s national anthem at all its martial arts competitions.
In the United Kingdom, some argued that banning Maccabi Tel Aviv fans wasn’t enough, calling for the team itself to be barred from competition.
In the leadup to the ban on supporters of the Israeli team, British MP Ayoub Khan and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn launched a petition to cancel the game entirely, citing both the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and the “track record of violence by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.” The petition, which launched in September prior to the ceasefire, drew nearly 4,000 signatures.
The tensions have also impacted major international tournaments. Last month, the European soccer federation UEFA was reportedly set to vote on banning Israel from international competition over the war in Gaza — a move that would have prevented the country from qualifying for the 2026 World Cup. The vote was paused, however, following the announcement last week of the Gaza ceasefire.
On Friday, local officials called a meeting for an “immediate review” of the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, with sources telling The Athletic they expect the policy to be reversed.
The post An attack on Israeli soccer fans last year was dubbed a ‘pogrom.’ Could it happen again? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Hamas Aims to Keep Grip on Gaza Security and Can’t Commit to Disarm, Senior Official Says
Hamas senior official Mohammed Nazzal speaks during an interview with Reuters, in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Hamas intends to maintain security control in Gaza during an interim period, a senior Hamas official told Reuters, adding he could not commit to the Palestinian terrorist group disarming – positions that reflect the difficulties facing US plans to secure an end to the war.
Hamas politburo member Mohammed Nazzal also said the group was ready for a ceasefire of up to five years to rebuild devastated Gaza, with guarantees for what happens afterwards depending on Palestinians being given “horizons and hope” for statehood.
Speaking to Reuters in an interview from Doha, where Hamas politicians have long resided, Nazzal defended the Islamist group’s crackdown in Gaza, where it carried out public executions on Monday. There were always “exceptional measures” during war and those executed were criminals guilty of killing, he said.
PRESSURE TO DISARM
While Hamas has broadly expressed these views before, the timing of Nazzal’s comments demonstrates the major obstacles obstructing efforts to cement a full end to the war in Gaza, days after the first phase of the ceasefire was agreed.
They point to big gaps between Hamas’s positions and US President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, ahead of negotiations expected to address Hamas’s weapons and how Gaza is governed.
Asked for comment on Nazzal’s remarks, the Israeli prime minister’s office said Israel was committed to the ceasefire agreement and continued to uphold and fulfil its side of the plan.
“Hamas is supposed to release all hostages in stage 1. It has not. Hamas knows where the bodies of our hostages are. Hamas are to be disarmed under this agreement. No ifs, no buts. They have not. Hamas need to adhere to the 20-point plan. They are running out of time,” it said in a statement to Reuters.
Trump’s Sept. 29 plan called for Hamas to immediately return all hostages before committing to disarmament and ceding governance of Gaza to a technocratic committee overseen by an international transitional body.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supported the plan, saying it would dismantle Hamas’s military capabilities, end its political rule, and ensure that Gaza would never again pose a threat to Israel.
Hamas-led terrorists killed 1,200 people and abducted another 251 during the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel that triggered the war. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostage and dismantling Hamas in neighboring Gaza.
Pummeled by Israel in the war, the internationally designated terrorist group is under intense pressure to disarm and surrender control of Gaza or risk a resumption of the conflict.
Asked if Hamas would give up its arms, Nazzal, speaking on Wednesday, said: “I can’t answer with a yes or no. Frankly, it depends on the nature of the project. The disarmament project you’re talking about, what does it mean? To whom will the weapons be handed over?”
He added that issues to be discussed in the next phase of negotiations, including weapons, concerned not only Hamas but other armed Palestinian groups, and would require Palestinians more broadly to reach a position.
Asked for its response to Nazzal’s remarks, the White House directed Reuters to comments by Trump on Thursday.
“We have a commitment from them and I assume they’re going to honour their commitment,” Trump said, noting that Hamas had returned more bodies but without elaborating on the issue of it disarming or its interim presence on the ground.
Nazzal also said the group had no interest in keeping the remaining bodies of deceased hostages seized in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.
Hamas has handed over at least nine out of 28 bodies. It was encountering technical problems recovering more, he said, adding that international parties such as Turkey or the US would help search if needed.
A senior Turkish official said last week that Turkey would take part in a joint task force along with Israel, the US, Qatar and Egypt to locate the bodies.
Hamas said on Friday it would transfer the body of another hostage to the Red Cross, with Israel confirming the handover would occur just after midnight on Saturday amid a dispute over delays in the return of remains under their ceasefire deal. Israel, insisting Hamas knows the whereabouts of the hostages’ bodies, had said the group was running out of time.
Hamas agreed on Oct. 4 to release the hostages and hand over governance to a technocratic committee, but said other matters needed to be addressed within a wider Palestinian framework. It released all living hostages on Monday.
Nazzal said the phase two negotiations would begin soon.
GOALS OF ELECTIONS, ‘HOPE’ FOR PALESTINIANS
On Tuesday, Trump said he had communicated to Hamas that it must disarm or it would be forced to. Trump has also suggested Hamas was given temporary approval for internal security operations in Gaza, and has endorsed Hamas killing members of gangs.
Noting Trump’s remarks, Nazzal said there was an understanding regarding Hamas’s presence on the ground, without specifying among whom, indicating it was necessary to protect aid trucks from thieves and armed gangs.
“This is a transitional phase. Civilly, there will be a technocratic administration as I said. On the ground, Hamas will be present,” he said. After the transitional phase, there should be elections, he said.
Nazzal said mediators had not discussed with the group an international stabilization force for Gaza, which was proposed in Trump’s ceasefire plan.
Hamas’s founding charter called for the destruction of Israel, and its leaders regularly declare their intention to destroy the Jewish state.
Nazzal said Hamas had suggested a long-term truce in meetings with US officials, and wanted a truce of at least three to five years to rebuild the Gaza Strip. “The goal isn’t to prepare for a future war.”
Beyond that period, guarantees for the future would require states to “provide horizons and hope for the Palestinian people,” he said.
“The Palestinian people want an independent Palestinian state,” he added.