Uncategorized
The Gaza hostage crisis could forever change how American Jews relate to Israel — but it’s not too late to fix that
In the aftermath of the deadly terror attack at a Hanukkah party on Australia’s Bondi Beach, Jews who have watched the global surge in antisemitism with growing dread are once again considering the need to seek refuge in the Jewish state.
It’s a conclusion many native Israelis find bewildering. Oct. 7 and everything that followed has left them feeling deeply abandoned by a government they no longer trust to protect – or rescue – them. In the past two years, they are quick to note, more Jewish lives have been lost in Israel than anywhere else in the world. This disconnect over Jewish safety was shaped in no small part by the 251 men, women, and children taken hostage on Oct. 7 — and, perhaps even more profoundly, by the long, agonizing struggle to bring them back.
What began as a unified call to “Bring Them Home” soon split into two very different narratives. In Israel, public consensus collapsed as families increasingly blamed the government for sacrificing their loved ones on the altar of political survival, creating rifts that would eventually splinter not only the hostage movement but Israeli society itself.
In the United States, that dynamic played out very differently. Amidst rising hostilities coming from outside the Jewish community and deepening divisions forming within, the hostage rallies remained a source of solidarity, a respite from conflict rather than the source. But it also left many with a distorted view of events, further widening the already-existing gap between how American Jews relate to Israel and how Israelis understand themselves.
Few people are better positioned to explain that gap than one of the people who helped create it. Israeli-born Shany Granot-Lubaton is a longtime pro-democracy activist. After moving to New York City three years ago, she led protests there against the Israeli government’s 2023 judicial overhaul. On Oct. 7, Granot-Lubaton pivoted abruptly to hostage advocacy, eventually co-founding the American version of Israel’s Hostages and Missing Families Forum.
“Right away, I understood we would need a different approach from the way we spoke during the judicial overhaul protests,” Granot-Lubaton told the Forward. Her first priority, she said, was honoring the wishes of the families themselves. While far from a monolith, the majority believed messaging outside Israel should avoid overt confrontation with the government, even as some of those same family members were among its fiercest critics at home.
One of them was Udi Goren, whose cousin Tal Haimi was killed defending Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak on Oct. 7, his body abducted to Gaza. In Israel, Goren became one of the most active figures in the struggle, managing the Forum’s Knesset operations and confronting lawmakers directly. However, he fully supported taking a more restrained approach abroad.
“An effective public campaign is about leverage,” Goren said, in an interview with the Forward. “I didn’t see how attacking the Israeli government in the U.S. would motivate anyone with power to secure a deal to do it faster.”
With American politics becoming more polarized and the prospect of a second Trump term looming, the goal was to keep the tent wide and bipartisan — without completely absolving Netanyahu of responsibility.
“It was a fine line,” Granot-Lubaton recalled. “At every rally, we made sure to say — from the stage — that the Israeli government must do everything they can to bring them home. But we didn’t want to delve too deeply into accusations.”
There were other challenges as well. An open-tent structure inevitably included voices whose priorities did not fully align with the organizers’ carefully calibrated messaging. This included a new crop of influencers who positioned themselves as champions of the hostage cause, filling their feeds with “on-the-ground reporting” from rallies, vigils, and reunions. But their content also reflected personal worldviews and financial interests, dictating which parts of the story were amplified and which were left out. While some managed to remain politically neutral, others co-opted the cause to advance their own agendas.
For Goren, those tensions mattered less than the mission. Anyone advocating for the hostages was an ally — with one red line. “If you’re using this to spread Islamophobia or hatred against Arabs, you’re damaging the cause,” he said. “But beyond that, even if you were very conservative or right-wing — as long as your priority was bringing the hostages home — then for this campaign, you and I were in the same camp.”
The approach appeared to have worked. In the United States and across much of the diaspora, the hostage campaign remained unified.
But when Granot-Lubaton moved back to Israel with her family in 2024, she came face to face with a very different reality. Unlike the apolitical movement she and others had carefully cultivated back in the States, here the hostage struggle had become deeply politicized. Netanyahu and his allies, aided by sympathetic media outlets and an ideologically entrenched base, managed to paint the Bring Them Home campaign as a “leftist” project.
Families were forcibly removed from Knesset meetings, publicly attacked and delegitimized by ministers, harassed online and confronted in the streets; some were manhandled by police or even arrested. Conspiracy theories proliferated — including claims that some families were paid agents of the anti-government movement. In one particularly bizarre case, rumors circulated that hostage Matan Zangauker was not in captivity, but hiding out in Egypt.
On Oct. 13, 2025, the infighting briefly gave way to collective joy, as Israel welcomed home the last 20 living hostages. But the unity did not last. Before the hostages had even been released from the hospital, they and their families came under renewed vitriol — criticized for speaking against Netanyahu, for failing to sufficiently praise the IDF, and for asking the public for financial assistance.
It was a bitter twist of irony. The same acts that had come to symbolize anti-Israel extremism abroad — tearing down hostage posters, accusing hostages of lying — were now being carried out by Israelis themselves. And yet, so much of that derision has remained largely unacknowledged outside of Israel.
While Hamas is still holding the body of Master Sgt. Ran Gvili, the official campaign is over. Hostage Square has been dismantled. The Forum has shuttered its Tel Aviv headquarters and ended the weekly rallies. Goren, finally able to bury his beloved cousin, and Granot-Lubaton, now resettled in Israel, have begun new chapters in their lives.
Both stand by the strategy that shaped the movement abroad — but agree that what comes next must look different. The version of Israel that proved effective in mobilizing support overseas during the crisis now risks reinforcing a status quo many inside the country are fighting to change. And they are asking the same communities that rallied so powerfully for the hostages to engage just as seriously with the struggle over Israel’s future.
For Goren, that means pushing progressive Jews past their long-standing reluctance to “get their hands dirty” with Israeli politics. “Conservative and right-wing American Jews don’t hesitate for a second to get involved,” he asserted. “They get close to the government and the people in power. And they put their money where their mouth is.” He points to the Kohelet Policy Forum, whose American donors helped drive the judicial overhaul in Israel. “These are people that never lived in Israel a day in their lives, pushing the country towards a judicial coup,” he said. “We cannot afford to have Jews who care about Israeli democracy sit this one out.”
Granot-Lubaton shares the urgency, albeit with added empathy. “I don’t judge anyone who is uncomfortable speaking out loudly right now,” she noted. “You don’t need to be protesting in the streets. But you have to educate yourself. You have to talk to one another. Reach out to people who understand what’s happening here, invite them to speak in your synagogues.”
Responsibility, she added, cuts both ways. Israel’s pro-democracy movement must do more to meet American Jews where they are. “It’s not just translating content into English,” she said. “It’s understanding what Jewish communities are experiencing — and why challenging Israel feels so risky.”
But she categorically rejects the idea that Zionism and criticism are at odds. “I chose to come back and raise my children here,” she said. “Clearly I believe in this place. But the only way we can truly flourish is if we’re honest about what we’ve done and what we’re doing. I hope American Jews will join that movement. Unconditional love and support are no longer enough.”
The post The Gaza hostage crisis could forever change how American Jews relate to Israel — but it’s not too late to fix that appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel Votes in Favor of Iran Joining International Cheer Union: ‘The Iranian People Are Not Enemies’
Ludmila Yasinska, far right, posing with members of the Israeli Cheer Union competing at the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships in Orlando, Florida. Photo: Provided
Israel’s representative at the International Cheer Union (ICU) General Meeting in Orlando, Florida, this week voted in favor of Iran becoming a member nation of the organization.
Ludmila Yasinska, president of the Israeli Cheer Union, attended the annual meeting in-person and voted for Iran joining the ICU, the official world governing body for cheerleading.
The decision was approved, and a total of five applicant countries have newly joined the organization: Iran, Sint Maarten, Iceland, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. The ICU now has 126 national federation members across all continents, and each receives one vote for all General Meeting voting processes.
“The vote in favor of Iran’s participation in international competitions expresses a clear distinction between the Iranian people and the terrorist regime,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “It is a values-based position that sees the Iranian people not as enemies, but as human beings who seek to take part in the international arena, to compete, and to be partners in an open and fair world. It is also a statement of hope — that despite the complex reality, there is room to distinguish between citizens and leadership, and to extend a hand toward a different future.”
“May the day come when we can stand side by side and cheer together,” she added.
According to experts, the vast majority of the Iranian people oppose the authoritarian, Islamist regime that has ruled the country since 1979. In January, the regime’s security forces killed and imprisoned tens of thousands of civilians to crush anti-government protests that erupted across Iran.
The ICU General Meeting took place before the start of the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships. This year, Israel competed in the international competition for the first time ever. The championships started on Wednesday and concluded on Friday.
“It was an amazing feeling and a great source of pride to represent Israel on the world stage,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “Despite all the difficult times and the situation in Israel before the championship, we never stopped believing or working toward this moment.”
The competition occurred amid a ceasefire pausing the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, whose leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction. Before the temporary truce went into effect, Israelis spent weeks running to bomb shelters as the Iranian regime launched barrages of ballistic missiles at the Jewish state. Iran’s chief terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, also fired rockets at northern Israel from Lebanon.
“There were times when we had to train on Zoom because we could not leave our homes. We also had one intensive week where some of our girls from the north stayed in our homes, just so we could have the opportunity to train together as one team,” Yasinska explained. “After all of this hard preparation, sacrifice, and determination, to finally represent our country was incredibly emotional and meaningful. It is a huge honor for us, and it was very important to show the world that Israel is on the international map of this sport — standing strong, competing proudly, and doing the very best we can.”
In 2021, the ICU was granted full recognition by the International Olympic Committee.
Uncategorized
London Gallery Cancels Antisemitic Art Exhibit After Pro-Israel Lawyers Intervene
Demonstrators attend the “Lift The Ban” rally organised by Defend Our Juries, challenging the British government’s proscription of “Palestine Action” under anti-terrorism laws, in Parliament Square, in London, Britain, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
A gallery in southwest London has canceled a traveling art exhibition that it was set to host next month after a group of pro-Israel lawyers expressed concern about the show’s artwork promoting antisemitic content, including conspiracy theories about Jews and images that demonize Israeli and Jewish individuals.
“Drawings Against Genocide” by British artist Matthew Collings was set to be open at the Delta House Gallery in Wandsworth from May 16-24. The gallery is owned by Pineapple Corporation and Delta House Studios Ltd. After UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), an association of British lawyers who support the Jewish state, wrote a letter to the gallery’s owners about the exhibit’s antisemitic content, they canceled the event.
“We were unaware of this intention for an exhibition as it was arranged without any consultation with the owners of the artist studios at Riverside Road,” Pineapple Corporation Chairman Tom Berglund wrote in a letter to UKLFI on Friday that confirmed the exhibit has been called off. “We all hope the issues on the ground in the Middle East can eventually be resolved,” he added.
Last month, “Drawings Against Genocide” was displayed at a gallery in Margate, a seaside town in England, and garnered widespread criticism for promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives and imagery.
A spokesperson for UKLFI said freedom of expression “does not extend to the promotion of material that relies on antisemitic tropes, dehumanizing imagery, and conspiracy narratives about Jews.”
“There is a real danger in normalizing antisemitic imagery and narratives in cultural spaces,” the spokesperson added. “When material that demonizes Jews or recycles classic antisemitic tropes is presented as legitimate artistic expression, it risks lowering the threshold for what is considered acceptable in public discourse. At a time when Jewish communities in London and across the UK are already facing a significant rise in antisemitic incidents and attacks, it is particularly important that institutions act responsibly. The wider environment in which hatred is trivialized or excused can contribute to a climate in which such attacks become more likely.”
Collings’ drawings feature swastikas, often alongside the flag of Israel, show Jews surrounded by skulls, depict ancient Israelites with horns, and compare Israel to Nazi Germany. One drawing shows Sotheby’s French-Israeli owner Patrick Drahi as a “fanatic Zionist” who eats babies alive. Others demonized in Collings’ work include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pro-Israel writer and journalist David Collier, and film director Quentin Tarantino, who resides in Israel with his family.
Some drawings also address the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel. One artwork denies that sexual violence took place during the massacre while another falsely claims there is “no reliable evidence whatsoever” about some of the violence orchestrated by the Hamas terrorist organization.
UKLFI told the gallery’s owners that Collings’ artwork could “potentially engage provisions under the Public Order Act 1986 and expose both the artist and the gallery to legal risks.”
Collings insists that his artwork is criticism of Israel and Zionism, but not antisemitic. He wrote in an Instagram post that his drawings “are a window into the Zionist lobby’s connection to our government, mainstream media, and the art world. The images depict individuals implicated in the genocide in Gaza as well as challenge the notion that being against Zionism is antisemitic.” He said in a separate post that his art exhibit “fights against the atrocities Israel is committing” and will “go on touring until Palestine is free.”
“Venues around the world are lined up to host it. Sold works are replaced by new ones,” he added. “Ongoing realities are pictured. A real bloody genocide is the subject. And be damned to unreal absurdities uttered by Zionist defenders of the indefensible.”
Uncategorized
Shabbos Kestenbaum: Administrators Have a Duty to Protect Jewish Students and Continue to Fail
The campus of Smith College in April 2024. Photo: Instagram/Screenshot
Across the country, we’re watching the same play staged, with the same script. Earlier this month, students at Ohio University passed a BDS referendum. Last week, a different BDS referendum passed at UC Berkeley. At Smith College, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility considered a BDS proposal on April 16 and then went silent on its timeline. On April 22, at San Diego State, the student government held its final vote and passed a BDS resolution.
Four campuses, four tests, and the question for every administrator is the same: Will you stand up now, or will you do what Harvard did and let the crisis metastasize? I know the answer when administrators fail.
As a former Harvard student, I watched an institution ignore more than 40 written appeals to its antisemitism task force. I filed a federal Title VI lawsuit as a last resort. A federal judge rejected Harvard’s motion to dismiss. Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in January 2025 as part of a related settlement, and my case settled four months later. But none of that had to happen. If Harvard had rejected the ideological premises of the BDS movement clearly and early, rather than treating them as legitimate academic discourse, the crisis that engulfed its campus might have been contained.
The four campuses now facing BDS votes should learn from Harvard’s failure, not repeat it.
Ohio University represents the worst kind of response: the response that isn’t. When a BDS referendum passed on campus, the university’s only pushback came through Senior Director of Communications Dan Pittman, who told Jewish outlets that the university “will neither consider, nor act upon, any resolution or referendum that proposes illegal actions.” The statement was never posted on the university’s official channels. The president’s office has said nothing publicly. A quiet quote buried in the Jewish press is not a condemnation. It is a hope that the story will disappear. American Jewish students at Ohio University deserve a public, forceful, unambiguous rejection from President Lori Stewart Gonzalez, delivered on university letterhead and posted to the university’s own website.
UC Berkeley now faces the same test. On April 18, the student government’s referendum passed, yet Chancellor Rich Lyons has not publicly rejected the result. Berkeley has already lived through the consequences of administrative hesitation. In March 2026, Berkeley Law paid $1 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit after its “Jewish-free zones” and harassment of American Jewish students became national news. The university has been sued once for antisemitism. It should not need to be sued twice before its chancellor states plainly that the endowment will not be conscripted as a political weapon.
Smith College has an easier task and has somehow found a way to fail at it. In March 2024, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility rejected an earlier BDS proposal, finding Smith’s exposure to the targeted companies “negligible and entirely indirect.” On April 16, the committee considered a second, nearly identical proposal. Smith spokesperson Deb McDaniel stated that she “was not aware” of any formal timeline for the board to vote on the matter. That is the institutional equivalent of closing the blinds. Smith does not need a new study, a new committee, or a summer recess before delivering the same answer it delivered last year. The trustees should reaffirm the 2024 decision on the merits, in public, before the next academic year begins. Every week of silence is a week in which American Jewish students at Smith spend wondering whether their college has quietly switched sides.
This week, San Diego State University passed its BDS resolution, and the administration must clearly demonstrate that no divestment demand will be acted upon. President Adela de la Torre should not wait for the student government to humiliate itself on camera before defending the university’s fiduciary duty. American Jewish students at SDSU are entitled to know where their president stands, and they are entitled to know it in public, in writing, and this week.
These four cases share a single feature: Administrators who know the right answer and are hoping someone else will deliver it for them. Brown’s Corporation rejected divestment in October 2024. Bowdoin rejected it in March 2025. Dartmouth’s committee rejected it nine to zero. Columbia’s president said the university “will not divest from Israel.” Every institution that has engaged the question seriously has reached the same conclusion. The problem is not that the case against BDS is weak. The problem is that too many administrators would rather be quietly correct than publicly brave.
Quiet is not an option anymore. A 2026 study found that 42 percent of American Jewish students have experienced antisemitism on campus, and 34 percent hide their Jewish identity out of fear. These numbers are not abstractions. They are the direct product of administrative timidity in the face of a movement whose explicit goal is the delegitimization of the Jewish state and the isolation of American Jewish students on American campuses.
On Oct. 7, 2023, young American Jews woke up. We are not going back to sleep. We are watching Ohio University, UC Berkeley, Smith College, and San Diego State. We expect administrators who were hired to protect students to do their job.
Shabbos Kestenbaum is a political commentator at PragerU and a former lead plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against Harvard University.