Uncategorized
One lesson of NYC’s mayoral election: Rabbis’ political endorsements come with a cost
The Book of Exodus begins with a sudden shift in fortunes. Joseph, the Jewish leader who rose to power in Pharaoh’s court, dies. The Pharaoh who favored him dies. And then: “A new king arose who did not know Joseph.” What follows is not just a story of oppression and liberation; it’s a reminder that although values may be durable, political power is temporary. When we tie ourselves too closely to rulers rather than to enduring principles, we live at the mercy of their rise and fall.
That warning feels newly relevant. In the lead-up to the New York mayoral election, many rabbis around the country felt a powerful pull to speak publicly about the race. Following a recent IRS policy change that undermined barriers to clergy endorsements, some rabbis chose to sign open letters supporting or opposing candidates. Most did so out of a sincere sense of responsibility; after all, leaders are called to speak out when they fear their community is at risk. Many others felt torn about this kind of endorsement and wrestled with what moral leadership looks like in a moment of such political intensity.
Now that the votes have been cast and the ballots have been counted, it’s worth reflecting on what we’ve learned, and whether rabbis should embrace or avoid these kinds of endorsements in the future.
As the founder and Executive Director of A More Perfect Union, a nonpartisan organization mobilizing the Jewish community to protect and strengthen American democracy, here’s my take: Even though publicly supporting a particular candidate might feel urgent in the moment, endorsements cost us something essential. They oversimplify moral leadership. They divide communities. And they come with political pressures that erode trust and integrity.
First, endorsements flatten what should be nuanced and expansive. Rabbinic leadership involves a great deal of complexity. Rabbis wrestle with difficult questions, navigate complicated ideas, and make room for compelling arguments and competing truths in a world that is constantly changing.
It’s a tough gig.
But endorsements, by design, are binary. They elide complicated thought processes into a single, stark political statement, and erase the ability to emphasize values over individuals. No candidate is a perfect embodiment of our – or any – community’s views on all issues, and an endorsement can make it seem like a rabbi agrees with every part of a candidate’s views or platform, even if that’s not the case. As a result, rabbis can end up associated with ideas or individuals they never intended to support. When we align with individuals instead of ideals, we become vulnerable to their whims. Even if our chosen candidate is successful, they may change their minds on critical issues, or find themselves soon swept out of power. Values endure; leaders do not.
Second, endorsements divide the congregations rabbis are called to hold together. Even in an era when our communities tend to sort by ideology, synagogues are some of the last places where people who vote differently can still sit side by side – to celebrate, to mourn, to pray, and to search for meaning. Endorsing or opposing a candidate from the bimah risks turning that sacred space into one more battlefield in an already divided nation. It replaces curiosity with certainty, and leaves some feeling that their place in the community depends on how they vote. Our communities are too important, and rabbis’ responsibilities are too great, to compromise them with a single act of politics.
Third, endorsements invite political pressure and exploitation. Once clergy are seen as political actors, politicians will treat them as political assets. Synagogue donors, board members, and officeholders will begin to link support to public positioning. It’s easy to imagine a rabbi feeling pressured to publicly endorse a donor’s preferred candidate in order to secure funding for a food pantry or security needs. Whether that pressure is explicit or implicit, the potential for exploitation undermines moral leadership, casts doubt on rabbis’ motives, and makes it harder to serve the community with integrity.
Now, refusing to make endorsements doesn’t mean withdrawing from public life. Quite the opposite. Rabbis can – and must – speak to the moral dimensions of politics without becoming partisan actors. Rabbis can preach values without preaching partisanship. They can support those in need without supporting a particular campaign. They can model disagreement without division. They can create spaces for civic learning, honest dialogue, and pluralism.
Most of all, they can remind their communities through words and deeds that democracy itself is a moral achievement; one that allows us to keep talking, to keep learning, and to keep trying to get it right. They can speak up for enduring values – and not temporary pharaohs.
In the days following a hard-fought election, New York — and the rest of this country — will need voices of healing. We’ll need rabbis who can bring people back together across divides; who can remind us that belonging is bigger than partisanship and that our covenant with one another endures longer than any term in office. If we can remember that, we can reclaim something that feels radical in this polarized moment: the possibility of conversation, deliberation, and principled debate, even among those who disagree.
That, more than any endorsement, is what moral leadership looks like.
—
The post One lesson of NYC’s mayoral election: Rabbis’ political endorsements come with a cost appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Greta Thunberg Released From Custody After Arrest at UK Anti-Israel Protest
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg speaks to a police officer during a pro-Palestinian protest as she holds a sign that says she supports prisoners linked to Palestine Action, an organization which the British government has proscribed as a terrorist group, in London, Britain, Dec. 23, 2025. Photo: Prisoners for Palestine/Handout via REUTERS
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg was released from custody after being arrested on Tuesday in London at an anti-Israel protest, police said.
UK-based campaign group Prisoners for Palestine said Thunberg was earlier arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding a sign that said “I support the Palestine Action prisoners. I oppose genocide.” The British government has proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group.
City of London Police said Thunberg had been bailed until March.
Police said earlier two other people had been arrested for throwing red paint at a building. A spokesperson said 22-year-old woman later attended the scene and was arrested for displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organization.
Prisoners for Palestine, which supports some detained activists who have gone on hunger strike, said the building had been targeted because it was used by an insurance firm which they said provided services to the British arm of Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems.
The insurance company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Thunberg, 22, became prominent after staging weekly climate protests in front of the Swedish parliament in 2018.
Last year, she was cleared of a public order offense in Britain as a judge ruled police had no power to arrest her and others at a protest in London the year before.
She was detained along with 478 people and expelled by Israel in October after joining an activist convoy of vessels, the Global Sumud Flotilla, that attempted to breach Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Israel has consistently denied genocide allegations, noting it has targeted Hamas terrorists with its military campaign and taken measures to try and avoid civilian casualties.
Uncategorized
When Famine Vanished: How the Media Repeated a Claim, and Never Reckoned With Its Collapse
Trucks carrying humanitarian aid and fuel line up at the crossing into the Gaza Strip at the Rafah border on the Egypt side, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, in Rafah, Egypt, October 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer
CNN delivered the update quietly and inaccurately, with much less gravity than it once used to amplify the warning.
“Gaza no longer in famine,” read a CNN post, citing a UN-backed hunger monitor.
Reuters and the Associated Press followed with similar headlines.
What is striking is not that the unreliable IPC, which has been criticized in the past for faulty methodology, revised its assessment.
What’s really upsetting is that much of the press treated the reversal as a weather update, not as a reckoning.
Only months earlier, these same institutions helped cement a very different narrative.
In late July 2025, UN agencies issued a high-profile warning that key indicators in Gaza exceeded famine thresholds, citing IPC data and describing hundreds of thousands facing famine-like conditions. The IPC alert itself stated that famine thresholds had been reached for food consumption in most of Gaza and for acute malnutrition in Gaza City.
In August 2025, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) announced that famine was confirmed for the first time in Gaza, again anchored to IPC assessments.
Those claims ricocheted through global media coverage with little visible skepticism about methodology, access constraints, or incentives baked into a wartime information environment.
The result was a widely accepted narrative that Israel was causing famine, a narrative that shaped diplomatic pressure and public outrage long before the data could be stress tested.
Now the IPC’s latest assessment says no area has ever been in famine, attributing improvements to increased humanitarian and commercial food deliveries after the ceasefire, while warning that the situation remains fragile and could deteriorate again if access is disrupted or fighting resumes.
IPC’s latest fraudulent Gaza report implies 1,700+ starvation deaths this December 2025—even TODAY we should see 57 such deaths! But even Hamas reports only 475 total starvation deaths for the ENTIRE WAR. The math exposes how detached from reality all these models are. 1/ pic.twitter.com/wOvIohWTt2
— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) December 19, 2025
The AP at least gestured to the whiplash, noting that months earlier, the IPC said famine was occurring in Gaza City and was likely to spread without a ceasefire and an end to restrictions.
Reuters likewise framed the change as a shift from earlier IPC findings, while stressing continued emergency-level needs. But what was largely missing was the one ingredient journalism owes the public when an apocalyptic claim collapses or is materially revised: responsibility.
No media outlet interrogated the underlying assumptions when famine warnings were treated as settled fact. None explained what changed in the inputs and thresholds. None revisited the earlier certainty with the same prominence as the original alarm.
This matters because narratives do not stay on paper.
In the United States, the ADL has reported that anger at Israel during the war has been a driving force behind antisemitism, underscoring how the information ecosystem around Gaza can translate into real-world hostility toward Jews. When famine claims are amplified uncritically, they do not just inform. They inflame.
The new UN-backed update does not erase Gaza’s suffering, and it does not vindicate anyone’s politics. It does, however, expose a core media failure: outsourcing verification to a single authoritative label, and then moving on when the label changes.
If famine was once a front-page certainty, the correction cannot be a footnote.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
US Heritage Foundation Think Tank Staff Quit Amid Antisemitism Controversy
The Heritage Foundation’s logo is displayed during the 2025 Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture in Washington, DC, US, Oct. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
Over a dozen employees have left jobs at the Heritage Foundation or were fired in recent days, according to the influential right-wing US think tank, as it grapples with allegations from former supporters that it has aligned itself with those accused of antisemitism.
In a statement about the resignations and firings on Monday, Heritage Foundation chief advancement officer Andy Olivastro said a handful of staff had chosen “disruption” and “disloyalty.”
He said the think tank “has always welcomed debate, but alignment on mission and loyalty to the institution are non-negotiable.”
The foundation has been caught in a firestorm of accusations and counter-accusations that began when former Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes, a self-described Christian nationalist, in October. The interview focused on their mutual opposition to US support of Israel, a view at odds with that of many conservatives.
Some supporters of the foundation have said it should distance itself from Carlson, characterizing the journalist’s views as antisemitic. But Kevin Roberts, the foundation president, has continued to personally back Carlson, who he says is a friend. Carlson strongly rejects accusations of antisemitism.
One of those who resigned this week was Josh Blackman, a law professor who contributed to Project 2025, a right-wing policy initiative overseen by the Heritage Foundation. In a letter posted online, he blamed Roberts for making Heritage‘s brand “toxic.”
“You aligned the Heritage Foundation with the rising tide of antisemitism on the right,” said Blackman, who edited the group’s Guide to the Constitution publication.
In an Oct. 30 video defending Carlson, Roberts said a “venomous coalition” was attacking the prominent podcaster over his interview with Fuentes. Roberts said conservatives should feel no obligation to support any foreign government no matter how great the pressure from “the globalist class.”
He later apologized for his use of the term “venomous coalition,” which he said Jewish colleagues understood to be an antisemitic trope.
Speaking at a November staff townhall meeting, Roberts said his intention was not to endorse Fuentes, who he called “an evil person,” but to “convert” some of his audience of several million people.
Advancing American Freedom said on Monday the three former leaders of Heritage‘s legal, economic, and data teams had joined the conservative advocacy group, along with 10 of their staff. The group led by former Vice President Mike Pence is critical of US President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.
Three Heritage Foundation board trustees have also resigned since November.
Chief US Circuit Judge William Pryor, a conservative jurist who contributed to Heritage‘s 800-page Guide to the Constitution, said in an interview he did not attend a promotional event for the book due to Roberts’ “totally inappropriate” language in the Oct. 30 video.
For some remaining Heritage employees, recent staff departures were driven by Republican Party jockeying rather than antisemitism or Israel.
“These resignations have a lot more to do with 2028 than it does with anything else,” Heritage fellow Robby Starbuck posted online. “One group wants a return to the Pence/Ryan GOP and the rest want to MAGA with @KevinRobertsTX.”