Uncategorized
Trump says Republicans ‘don’t like’ antisemites. Don’t trust him
President Donald Trump claims to be “the least antisemitic person” in the world, and, in a new interview with The New York Times, insisted that antisemites have no home in the Republican Party.
But with antisemitism erupting in right-wing circles, the narrative of Trump and the Republican Party as the Jewish people’s sole defenders is crumbling. And so is a form of Jewish politics that has catastrophically failed American Jews.
In response to the surge of left-wing antisemitism after Hamas’ massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, many American Jewish communities and institutions adopted a realpolitik approach for survival: support whichever candidates fight most fiercely in defense of Israel, and against campus antisemitism. That often meant standing behind Trump and his “Make America Great Again” base.
But staying in Trump’s good graces came with the condition of unequivocal loyalty. Questioning Trump, or the movements that backed his return to power, would be considered the epitome of disloyalty. Which meant that, in order to ensure the administration’s continued support for Jewish interests, Jewish groups working with Trump needed to disregard Republican antisemitism — see the widespread refusal to decry Elon Musk’s apparent Nazi salute after Trump’s inauguration.
That trade-off is no longer working.
Amid the growing popularity and influence of antisemites like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes — whom Trump, in the Times interview, claimed not to know, despite the two’s infamous 2022 dinner —Trump and his right-wing allies have failed to meaningfully act.
Which means that Jews who have partnered with Trump, or hoped his second presidency would prove to be good for our people, need to start considering a new form of Jewish politics – one in which supporting Israel and paying lip service to combating antisemitism are not the only meaningful yardsticks.
Supporting liberal democratic values — equality, civil discourse and political order — must matter, too. Because when illiberalism thrives, Jewish communities are always endangered.
Authoritarianism, the journalist Anne Applebaum explained in her 2020 book Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, stands against complexity, debate, and the political norms that make democracies thrive. This breeding ground is ripe for conspiratorial thinking, which is almost always a pretext to antisemitism.
Applebaum saw that process unfold after the election of Poland’s Law and Justice party in 2016, when some of her acquaintances drifted from embracing illiberalism to becoming propagandists advancing age-old antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Disregarding facts, spreading conspiracies and refusing accountability are the playbook of Trump’s presidency. And that’s exactly the playbook that figures like Carlson, Owens and Fuentes follow — no matter how much Trump disowns the connection.
Carlson, who was fired from Fox News more than two years ago, has since used his extraordinarily successful podcast to platform Holocaust deniers and spread conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel. And Trump defended Carlson’s 2025 interview with Fuentes, an openly antisemitic far-right agitator who has rapidly gained influence in the wake of his fellow far-right activist Charlie Kirk’s murder.
It was up to listeners “to decide” for themselves about Fuentes’ antisemitic views, Trump insisted.
Vice President JD Vance similarly refused to condemn Carlson, who served as an influential surrogate for Trump’s re-election campaign.
Owens, who hosts one of the world’s most popular podcasts, has also been defended by the more mainstream right. Megyn Kelly, a former Fox host with four million YouTube subscribers, has repeatedly refused to condemn the absurd antisemitic conspiracy theories Owens has spread — whether they involve Jewish pedophile rings, Israel being responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination, or Jewish money controlling the United States.
So despite Trump’s weak condemnation of antisemites — “I think we don’t like them,” he told the Times — his actions, and those of his allies and defenders, send a contrary message.
That must push American Jews to ask: What went wrong in the calculus? How could once avowedly proud defenders of Jews and Israel backtrack like this?
For starters, we must acknowledge that this change is not sudden. Rampant antisemitism in Trump’s administration has rarely received serious attention from his Jewish supporters. During his first term, and since his second inauguration last January, high-ranking officials under his watch have promoted the antisemitic Great Replacement theory; mocked the Holocaust; and maintained ties to antisemites. The response from too many mainstream Jewish groups has been, effectively, a shrug.
They may have thought that ignoring that culture was part of the bargain needed to secure Trump’s allyship. Instead, it should have been a warning sign that Trump cared about antisemitism and Israel only so long as doing so served him — not because it was right to do so.
Taking that bargain was an aberration from the Jewish norm, and a damaging one.
“Given the realities of history,” Jonathan A. Jacobs, director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics at John Jay College, has written,“Jews are fully alert to the ways that serious deficits of civility can be as menacing and lethal as discriminatory laws.”
There is a reason why American Jews have traditionally held a deep affinity for democratic societies: They understood the role that true democratic governance, and the values of liberal democracy, played in their safety.
History reminds us that whether in 20th-century Europe or today’s Middle East, systematic anti-democratic behaviors are a warning sign for Jews.
At the same time, this does not mean that democratic societies are the only consideration for Jewish safety.
The Australia Institute describes Australia’s democracy as “thriving,” yet only weeks ago, 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney, which came in the context of escalating antisemitism across the country — arsonist attacks on synagogues, calls for destroying Israel and isolation of Jewish communities.
That means democracy may not be enough to guarantee Jewish safety. But neither can it be disregarded.
The lesson for Jewish communities and institutions is that we must find leaders and politicians who will protect Jews in the short and long term. We must support a healthy democracy, and also fight for it to combat hate as effectively as possible.
That means backing politicians whose policies are not only favorable to Jewish safety and supporting Israel, but also toward democracy.
“Anyone who buys into the conspiracy myth that is the foundation stone of antisemitism,” Deborah Lipstadt, the former special envoy to Combat and Monitor Antisemitism, said in 2024, “has given up on democracy.”
If there is any lesson from the unmasking of right-wing antisemites, it is this: if Jews want lasting safety, they cannot secure it through transactional loyalty or selective outrage. The task is not to choose between fighting against antisemitism and for democratic values, but rather to insist upon both.
The post Trump says Republicans ‘don’t like’ antisemites. Don’t trust him appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
EU seeks to advance trade ban on Israeli settlements
(JTA) — The European Union could be leaning toward banning trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Foreign ministers debated various tactics to respond to the settlements on Monday at their monthly council meeting in Brussels, against the backdrop of rising violence by settlers and efforts by the Israeli government to expand settlements in Palestinian territories.
In a press conference following the meeting, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said one possibility had stood out.
“The option that got the most support was banning the trade with illegal settlements,” she said. All 27 member states consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank to violate international law.
Kallas added, “We tasked the ambassadors to take this work forward, and probably will also have an extraordinary meeting on this.”
No decisions have yet been made, and the path forward is uncertain. Some EU member nations favor aggressive action against the settlements, while others are unlikely to back any measures that take aim at Israel. A number are in the middle and have not decided whether they support trade bans.
The level of agreement between European governments needed to enact a partial or full trade ban on Israeli settlements remains an open question. Kallas said it was the European Council’s legal opinion that voting on trade issues called for a qualified majority, meaning that 15 out of 27 states would have to vote in favor, representing at least 65% of the EU population.
But she also acknowledged that legal experts disagreed about how much backing was needed for a trade ban. “You can always find different lawyers who come up with different ideas,” she said.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Kallas of an “obsessive campaign against Israel” in a post on X. “There was no consensus. There was no qualified majority. In fact, there was no majority at all,” he wrote, adding, “Tricks like this do nothing to advance our shared interests.”
The EU has hotly debated measures against Israel as settlements in the West Bank have expanded and settler violence has sharply intensified over recent years. The Israeli NGOs Peace Now and Kerem Navot said in a report last week that “the current Israeli government has advanced de facto annexation of the West Bank at an unprecedented pace.”
The ministers considered measures including a stricter export licensing system, higher tariffs and a partial or outright ban on goods produced over the pre-1967 lines. The options were first presented in a paper last week by the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, as pressure mounted from European governments.
Kallas said these potential moves were not “options against Israel,” but “options against the illegal settlements that undermined the two-state solution.” She told reporters before the meeting that member states had been pressing for a trade ban on Israeli settlements, saying, “Everyone agrees that the situation in the West Bank is really intolerable.”
In May, the EU sanctioned Israeli settlers over violence against Palestinians after Hungary’s new government, led by Peter Magyar, gave its approval and allowed the states to reach a consensus.
To protest the Gaza war, the commission last year proposed suspending the EU’s free trade agreement with Israel as set out under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the cornerstone of economic and political cooperation between Europe and Israel. The proposal was not advanced because it lacked the majority support of 15 member states.
The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 33.1% of its imports and 29.4% of its exports in 2025, according to a summary on the European Commission website, which did not provide data on settler goods. The free trade agreement does not apply to goods originating from Israeli businesses located over the pre-1967 lines.
Revoking the association agreement requires unanimous approval from the EU’s 27 member states, while a partial suspension, such as freezing the free trade agreement, calls for a qualified majority. Germany, Italy, Hungary and Czechia have consistently opposed such suspensions.
Israel’s most vocal critics in Europe, including Ireland and Spain, have pushed for suspending the association agreement along with proposing their own import bans at the national level. Ireland now holds the rotating presidency of the European Council, a six-month term that ends in December 2026.
The legal basis of trade restrictions on Israel lies at the heart of debates in the EU. Support from a qualified majority is sufficient to enact a commercial policy, while changes in the common foreign and security policy — such as sanctions — require unanimity.
Some legal scholars have argued that an EU ban on imports from Israeli settlements should be imposed as a trade measure rather than a sanction, making it easier to pass.
A group of 40 scholars said in an open letter last month to Kallas, trade chief Maroš Šefčovič and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen that a blanket ban on settlement imports had a legal basis under the EU’s common commercial policy. Claims that unanimity was needed for the prohibition were “grounded in political rather than legal considerations,” they said.
The scholars also referenced an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in 2024, which said that Israel’s military control of Palestinian territories in the West Bank constituted an illegal occupation.
“In that regard, it should be noted that the EU Court of Justice has ruled that, in its acts, the EU is ‘bound to observe international law in its entirety,’” they said.
Daniel Mariaschin, Honorary CEO of the pro-Israel Jewish advocacy organization B’nai Brith International, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that reducing trade “would only weaken one of Europe’s most important partnerships in the region.”
“There are those within the EU who are looking for any way to undercut Israel’s international standing, and this is yet another example,” Mariaschin said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post EU seeks to advance trade ban on Israeli settlements appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
PEN America president, defending Israel’s critics, resigns after report warns of threats to Jewish authors
(JTA) — The president of PEN America resigned over the weekend in protest of a report on boycotts targeting Jewish and Israeli authors, part of yet another round of internal division over Israel at the literary free-speech institution.
Dinaw Mengestu, an Ethiopian-American novelist and Bard College professor, told The Atlantic he was stepping down because he believed the PEN report, “A Silent Moratorium,” failed to defend the free-speech rights of participants in the movement to boycott Israel.
“It’s the First Amendment that allows all of us to engage in boycotts, not PEN America,” Mengestu told the publication. “PEN America as a free expression organization is supposed to defend that right.”
The author did not respond to multiple Jewish Telegraphic Agency requests for comment, but in an Instagram post Monday alluded to an interest in creating a new organization to rival the prominent nonprofit, which defends the free expression rights other writers.
In response to an interview request, PEN sent a statement to JTA saying it was “grateful” for Mengestu’s leadership and would “respect” his decision. The statement also alluded to PEN’s own past turmoil: “We tell hard stories, in politically challenging moments, about writers from a range of perspectives, even when it’s uncomfortable for us given our own recent history.”
In its report, published on its blog, PEN described “Jewish and Israeli writers who feel that the mainstream literary world is increasingly shutting them out because of their identity, nationality, or views.” Interview subjects include several Israel critics, as well as literary agents who assert that they face more difficulties signing Jewish authors after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and amid the subsequent war in Gaza. The report also repeatedly cited a JTA report about a 2024 viral list of “Zionist” authors to boycott.
Among other details, PEN’s report revealed that Israeli novelist Etgar Keret and public radio host Ira Glass had cancelled a planned live event in Australia over fears of threats and protest.
“This silencing and exclusion of writers is a threat to what PEN America is fundamentally committed to defending: a culture of free expression for all,” according to the report.
In addition to the report, PEN also altered its institutional policy toward cultural boycotts, which the organization has long opposed. Although its report on Jewish authors asserted that boycotts “threaten the free expression rights” of their targets, the revised guidelines say that the group will also defend the right of writers to participate in boycotts.
Mengestu’s resignation comes at a perilous moment for Jews facing cultural boycotts, both within the standard-bearers of PEN and elsewhere. PEN’s Jewish former longtime CEO stepped down in 2024 following months of blowback from rank-and-file authors who felt the organization was insufficiently critical of Israel and caused PEN to cancel a festival for global authors.
Since the leadership change, PEN leadership has published and retracted a condemnation of a boycott effort trained at an Israeli comedian and also published a report cataloguing Israel’s “cultural destruction in Gaza.”
Mengestu had assumed the role of board president in 2025. But PEN’s report about Jewish and Israeli writers on Thursday, he wrote, “makes clear that [change] will not happen.”
The Anti-Defamation League said it was “deeply troubled” by Mengestu’s resignation Monday. “Freedom of expression means opposing efforts to boycott, silence, or exclude writers because of their identity or nationality,” the organization tweeted, saying that the author’s decision to leave PEN over his objections to the report on Jewish authors “sends a chilling message.” Jewish authors also objected.
“Imagine running a free expression org and resigning because it refuses to blacklist authors based on their nationality,” the author David Zweig wrote on X, musing whether Mengestu would object to boycotting authors from his birth country: “Ethiopia doesn’t exactly have a good human rights record.”
In response to The Atlantic’s story that quoted sources from inside PEN who were critical of his resignation, Mengestu wrote a lengthy Instagram post Monday in which he stated, “This piece is about trying to suppress constitutionally protected speech,” criticized past PEN reports critical of the BDS movement, and added, “What PEN America fails to understand is that boycott is a form of dialogue.”
He announced his intention to “help make something better,” receiving affirmative comments from notable authors including Viet Thanh Nguyen, Angela Flournoy, Jewish pro-Palestinian novelist Jess Row and Pulitzer Prize-winner Benjamin Moser, author of a forthcoming history of Jewish anti-Zionism.
Other Jewish authors on the left were among those defending Mengestu’s decision to step down.
“Dinaw is one hundred percent correct that this kind of fake victim propaganda can be used to support anti-Boycott legislation which violates the First Amendment and is everywhere as popular support for Palestinians grows,” author Sarah Schulman wrote on Facebook. Calling PEN’s blog about Jews “one of those fake anti-semitism pieces,” Schulman added, “If PEN wants to survive, they have to get out of the Israel/Zionism business.”
The post PEN America president, defending Israel’s critics, resigns after report warns of threats to Jewish authors appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Church of England backs study of Palestinian Christian document accusing Israel of genocide
(JTA) — The Church of England’s legislative body voted Monday to encourage churches across England to engage with a document produced by Palestinian Christians that accuses Israel of genocide despite requests from Jewish organizations and Britain’s chief rabbi to reject it.
The document is titled “Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide” and is also known as Kairos II, after the Palestinian Christian movement Kairos Palestine that produced it. It describes Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as a genocide, states that Israel is a “colonial enterprise built on racism,” and says decades of “occupation,” “apartheid” and “settler colonialism” are at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The vote on Monday does not adopt the accusations as church doctrine but says the church should hear the documents as “heartfelt expressions of the lived experience of Palestinian Christians,” and to engage with them in order to better understand the conflict.
Ahead of the debate in York, several Jewish organizations expressed concerns, and Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis asked Synod members to reject the amendment. Mirvis called Kairos II “deeply concerning” and that it “risks undermining decades of careful relationship-building” between Christians and Jews.
“It is truly shocking that a document which purports to speak in the name of truth contains so much falsehood,” he said.
Afterwards, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Phil Rosenberg, issued a statement calling the passage of the motion “highly problematic.”
“Kairos Palestine may come from a place of genuine pain, but the falsehoods and distortions of Kairos II, including its erasure of Jewish identity and experience, is a prescription for more division and not the answer to conflict in the Middle East,” he said.
“This document reflects the pain and trauma of the Palestinian people. As a pastor, I hear the cry of our Palestinian Christian sisters and brothers — a cry that rises from the ruins of Gaza, and from the violence and oppression of the West Bank,” she said.
She added, ”I also hear the concerns of the chief rabbi, the co-leads of the Movement for Progressive Judaism, and the Board of Deputies, and I thank them for their honesty.” She said the church remained opposed to antisemitism and committed to safety for Israelis as well as Palestinians.
The Synod debate followed Mullally’s visit to the West Bank in June, where she met Palestinian Christian communities in Birzeit. During the visit she said, “I will use my role as Archbishop to seek the peace you desire and the freedom you deserve.”
The debate marks the ascendance of Israel-related issues in another major church, after the Catholic Church’s Pope Leo XIV angered Jewish groups soon after being elected last year by endorsing an investigation into whether Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
The post Church of England backs study of Palestinian Christian document accusing Israel of genocide appeared first on The Forward.
