Uncategorized
Holocaust Scholars Are ‘Part of the Genocide Problem,’ Says Anti-Israel Group Under Fire for Using Lemkin Name
Raphael Lemkin being interviewed on Feb. 13, 1949. Photo: Screenshot
The head of a stridently anti-Israel group has attacked dozens of prominent Holocaust scholars who called out the US-based nonprofit for “exploiting” the name of Raphael Lemkin — the Polish-born Jewish lawyer who survived the Holocaust and subsequently coined the term “genocide” — to “falsely accuse” Israel of genocide.
Following the attack, multiple members of the Lemkin family expressed to The Algemeiner their firm opposition to the organization’s using their relative’s name to pursue a campaign of anti-Israel activism.
In a recent LinkedIn post, Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, co-founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, denounced more than 100 distinguished scholars, including two former leaders of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, for supporting Joseph Lemkin. Lemkin — a relative of Raphael Lemkin, who helped draft the Genocide Convention after World War II and after whom the institute is named — is fighting to disassociate his cousin from the anti-Israel institution.
The Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, established in 2021, began accusing Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza just days after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, where Palestinian terrorists slaughtered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages in the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust.
The institute accused the Jewish state of genocide even before the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched its ground offensive in Gaza weeks later. It further promoted the position that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for war crimes. In September 2024, the group expressed skepticism about whether Hamas terrorists raped Israeli victims, despite widely available evidence showing rampant sexual violence, and it has since continued criticizing Israel.
“In recent months,” the institute “has veered into strident anti-Israel political advocacy, supporting anti-Israel campus protests and reaching millions of viewers with social media posts that falsely accuse Israel of genocide,” The Algemeiner reported on Nov. 13, 2024, first exposing the group’s activity and the Lemkin family’s opposition to it doing so under their name.
“Joseph Lemkin, a New Jersey lawyer who is related to Raphael Lemkin, said he was unfamiliar with the institute until being informed of it by The Algemeiner,” the report said.
That was when Joseph Lemkin became determined to remove his family name from the institute.
Most recently, more than 100 distinguished scholars, led by Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, based in Washington, DC, penned a letter to Lemkin, expressing support for his effort.
“As scholars who have written about the Holocaust or other genocides, we share your family’s concern about extremists exploiting Raphael Lemkin’s name to attack Israel,” said the letter, which was dated Jan. 25 but not publicized until Jan. 30. “We support your efforts to reclaim the legacy of Raphael Lemkin from those who are besmirching his ideals and goals.”
Days later, in response, von Joeden-Forgey discussed the “ridiculous letter” in a LinkedIn post. “It is always a pity to realize how much ugliness they [the letters’ cosigners] hid behind their ‘Holocaust & Genocide Studies’ façade,” she wrote on Feb. 2, adding that she was “disgusted” by them.
Raising six points, von Joeden-Forgey claimed:
1) The idea that Raphael Lemkin would support Israel’s actions is ridiculous and itself constitutes a disparagement of his work and memory.
2) There are family members who support our work, so Joseph Lemkin — the only family member we have heard of who does not — does not represent “the family” or “the name.”
3) There has never been a good faith effort on Joseph Lemkin’s part to reach out to us to discuss his concerns. This has been a political hit job from the beginning. We have offered to discuss the issue twice. He instead decided to pursue a possible legal action and, when he realized he had no legal standing, he resorted to defaming us to US elected officials, government agencies, and the right-wing press.
4) I would like to ask these “scholars” to let us all know what they have been doing to reduce Palestinian deaths from Israel’s “war” and, more broadly, to prevent genocide in our world, since they find our work so egregious.
5) These “scholars” should be truly ashamed for calling our institute “extremist” in a political environment where they well know the impact that word can and probably will have on the freedoms of the US-based members of this institute. I consider these “scholars” to be supporting the US government’s assault on constitutional rights, particularly the First Amendment. They are, in other words, part of the genocide problem not the solution. But, of course, they must know that, considering that they should have read all about how these things work.
6) Blind support for Israel’s actions is genocide denial.
‘A Complete Lie’
Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner that the family is supportive of his stand — “except for one lone wolf. He used to live in the United States, and now he criticizes the US and criticizes Israel and has sent me some nasty emails, but he has never come out in public on the issue as far as I know.”
“To the contrary,” he continued. “My brother, Benjamin, has spoken out publicly; my sister, Rachel Memeles, and all of our children as well as my mother, who was married to my father, Daniel Lemkin — Raphael Lemkin’s first cousin. They were born in the same town.”
“My father was a Holocaust survivor. His parents and three brothers were all killed in the Holocaust. Raphael had no descendants; he didn’t have children of his own.”
Raphael Lemkin’s grave, Mount Hebron Cemetery in Flushing, Queens, New York. Photo: Oberezny, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Joseph also adamantly rejected the claim that he never reached out to the institute to discuss his concerns.
“Beyond being a complete lie, we have reached out through our counsel,” he said. “In actuality, they had suggested, through their attorney, that they would consider changing the name from the Lemkin Institute.”
According to the attorneys’ letter, sent on behalf of Joseph Lemkin and the European Jewish Association and obtained by The Algemeiner, the institute may face legal action if it does not accept a name change voluntarily.
“We are prepared to move forward to compel the Lemkin Institute to cease using Raphael Lemkin’s name and likeness,” it said. “We have recently read in one of your press releases, however, that you would consider dropping the Lemkin and simply call yourself The Institute for Genocide Prevention, Inc. If that is indeed the case, our issue with you is resolved. We certainly prefer to amicably resolve this matter. Please advise.”
“So, our attorneys reached out to them, but we never heard back,” Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner.
“The one thing that stands out,” he continued, “is that if you go on their website, you’ll see they sell Palestinian flags and mugs. This is an activist organization — not a principled organization looking to identify genocide. They have an agenda, and they’re trying to push it. That’s my concern. It doesn’t seem that they’re starting on a balanced playing field.”
“We reached out directly, through our counsel, at least twice — most recently in October and got no response,” he added.
‘A Terrible Thing They’ve Done to the Lemkin Name’
Joseph’s brother, Benjamin Lemkin, similarly told The Algemeiner that he opposes the institute’s use of his family name.
“It’s completely obvious that Raphael Lemkin would not have been accusing Israel of genocide in any fashion,” he said. “By all objective standards, Israel has done more to protect civilians than any other country fighting wars — even when those countries are not fighting wars of an existential nature. In this case, however, Israel is fighting a war of an existential nature. If anything, perhaps Raphael Lemkin, who was a Zionist and a strong advocate of Jewish survival, would have felt that Israel possibly is not doing enough to defend itself.”
He continued, “Given the fact that Raphael Lemkin was motivated in part by the scourge of antisemitism, he would have immediately identified all of these malicious genocide accusations as constituting an antisemitic blood libel.”
“I am very proud to be part of this effort against the Lemkin Institute, and I have never heard of any family member supporting the institute,” he said, noting that he was quoted in November 2025 by The National Post, a Canadian newspaper, expressing his agreement with his brother’s initiative.
“If Raphael, who died in 1959, were alive today, he definitely would have been outraged,” he told the Post. “It is an abuse of his work … This is a terrible thing they’ve done to the Lemkin name.”
Medoff, the Holocaust scholar who spearheaded the letter in support of Joseph Lemkin, lamented how the institute attacked his colleagues.
“It’s sad that the Lemkin Institute’s president would stoop to questioning the scholarly credentials of some of the most prominent academics in the world of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, including authors of major texts in the field, chairs of university departments and Holocaust centers, and editors of leading publications,” Medoff told The Algemeiner, noting that in her LinkedIn post, von Joeden-Forgey put the word “scholars” in quotes. “She seems to be saying that you don’t even qualify as a scholar unless you agree with her anti-Israel views. What a remarkable position to take.”
The Algemeiner reached out to von Joeden-Forgey for comment but did not receive a response.
Atara Nurenberger Beck made aliyah in 2011 from Toronto, where she had many years of journalistic experience. She is currently a freelance writer and editor.
Uncategorized
At the edge of America, six Jewish graves endure
A July 1954 funeral in Fairbanks, Alaska, drew unexpected attention from Jewish newspapers across the country. The woman being buried, Lena Ferguson, was laid to rest in what the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner described simply as the “Jewish plot” inside the city’s Clay Street Cemetery — a small, largely forgotten burial ground that many outside Alaska did not even know existed.
Reports in papers from Florida to Chicago described the “discovery” of what was believed to be the only known Jewish cemetery in the Last Frontier. Some emphasized the unusual circumstances of a Jewish burial in the remote Alaskan interior. Others noted that Ferguson had been married to a non-Jew.
Long before Alaska had a purpose-built synagogue, the Jewish plot at Clay Street had already begun preserving the names of Jews who lived and died in the territory.
The six graves within the plot preserve fragments of a largely forgotten Jewish world built around mining camps, frontier trade, military outposts and isolated immigrant lives. Together, they show how Jewish life appeared in one of the most remote corners of the United States, often before the institutions that sustained it elsewhere.
Ferguson’s funeral itself reflected that improvisational frontier Judaism. According to accounts published at the time, her Jewish identity only became widely known after her brother, Joseph Wishengrad of Catskill, New York, contacted a Fairbanks funeral chapel and requested that she be buried according to Jewish law.
Alaska’s only rabbi, military chaplain Jacob Rubenstein, happened to be away visiting Jewish servicemen stationed at remote military installations. In his absence, Jack Frankel — a former Biloxi, Mississippi, resident working for the United Service Organizations-Jewish Welfare Board — helped officiate the service alongside Robert Bloom, a former Klondike Gold Rush miner who later opened a hardware and general merchandise store in Fairbanks.
Jewish newspapers reported that the cemetery plot had not been used for more than 25 years because many Jews who died in Alaska were sent “to the states” for burial instead.
Before Ferguson, the most recent burial there had been Gussie Beckman in 1939. Born in New York in 1882, Beckman operated the Palace Baths and the Palace Liquor Store on Fourth Avenue in Fairbanks. Her obituary noted that “nothing is known in this city of any surviving relatives.”
Her funeral demonstrated how tenuous Jewish communal life in Alaska could be: a Christian minister, Rev. Rudolph G. Fitz, conducted the service, while Leonard Newman, a University of Alaska mining engineering student from New York City, read the burial prayers. Her pallbearers included future state senator John B. Hall, Deputy Marshal Pat O’Connor and other Fairbanks civic figures.
Other graves preserve similar fragments of frontier life.
Thomas Robin, a Romanian-born immigrant who arrived in Alaska in 1893, was buried in 1923 under the auspices of the Pioneers of Alaska, a fraternal organization founded by early settlers in the territory. His obituary identified him as a member of the Iditarod Igloo chapter.
Julia Warren, buried in 1929, lived near the Mason Creek gold mine and died in an automobile accident alongside three others. Her husband worked as a miner.
Anna Marks, who died in 1915, received a public funeral in Moose Hall, reflecting how civic lodges and fraternal organizations often doubled as gathering places in frontier towns where formal Jewish institutions scarcely existed.
Little survives about David Hurvitz, who died in 1920, beyond a brief bankruptcy notice published years earlier.
And that absence itself forms part of the story. The record preserves only fragments: names, occupations, scattered newspaper clippings and weathered gravestones. Yet together they reveal that Jewish life in Alaska did not begin with synagogues or other organized institutions. It began with individuals — merchants, miners, and immigrants — carrying pieces of Jewish identity into an isolated region where religious infrastructure barely existed.
Alaska’s first purpose-built synagogue, Congregation Beth Sholom in Anchorage, would not be dedicated until 1965, more than a decade after Lena Ferguson’s burial and nearly 360 miles south of Fairbanks.
Clay Street Cemetery eventually closed to new burials as Fairbanks shifted to Birch Hill Cemetery after 1938. In 1982, the historic cemetery was added to the National Register of Historic Places.
Today, Jewish life in Alaska is more visible than it once was. Congregation Or HaTzafon was founded in Fairbanks in 1980, and Chabad established a center there in 2024. The closest active Jewish cemetery is now in Anchorage.
The six graves at Clay Street remain among the earliest surviving records of Jewish life at the edge of America.
The post At the edge of America, six Jewish graves endure appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Texas candidate’s antisemitic rhetoric sparks outrage ahead of Tuesday runoff. Did it fuel her rise?
(JTA) — When Maureen Galindo finished first in a crowded Democratic primary for a newly redrawn South Texas congressional district in March, the result surprised even seasoned observers of San Antonio politics.
With voters set to decide the Democratic nomination Tuesday, as Galindo faces off with sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia, local officials and political observers are grappling with how a little-known candidate with a history of inflammatory remarks about Israel and Jews has come within striking distance of a seat in Congress.
The local housing activist went into the race with little political profile, having received less than 3% of the vote in a San Antonio City Council race last year. Local officials familiar with the contest chalked up Galindo’s success to a litany of factors, including low voter awareness of the candidates and a newly drawn Republican-leaning district that attracted few high-profile Democratic contenders.
What they did not credit for her success was her antisemitic rhetoric. While the race heading into Tuesday night’s runoff has been defined by scrutiny and criticism of Galindo’s views toward Zionists, local political analysts and activists told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that her controversial positions were not widely known ahead of her March win and, if anything, are hurting her chances against Garcia.
Israel is a growing flashpoint in a number of Democratic primaries across the country, and several candidates have drawn allegations of antisemitism as they employ harsh criticism of Zionism. Galindo’s rhetoric has been even more extreme – including vows to turn a local immigrant detention center “into a prison for American Zionists” – but San Antonio political observers caution against lumping her early success in with the recent wins of progressive candidates in urban districts.
Jon Taylor, a political science professor at University of Texas San Antonio, told JTA that Galindo’s antisemitic rhetoric had been largely unknown at the time of the primary.
“What I can tell from previous candidate forums, she talked about the 1%, she talked about going after Trump and ICE,” Taylor said. “None of the stuff on Zionism, from what I could tell, was ever mentioned.”
Now that her antisemitic tirades have received so much attention, Taylor predicted they would turn off voters in the socially conservative district, where elections are usually driven by pocketbook issues.
“To be honest, talking about Israel, talking about some sort of Zionist conspiracy, is not what voters are looking for,” Taylor said.
Galindo has previously told local outlets that it was her “perception that Zionist billionaires run the world” and posted on social media that “ZIOS=GENOCIDAL EUROPEAN COLONIZER FREAKS,” After Texas Senate candidate James Talarico revealed to JTA that he would not back or campaign with Galindo, she told JTA that “coordinated media attacks declaring my anti-Zionist rhetoric as anti-Semitic” were “causing MORE harm to the Jews of San Antonio by playing into all the stigmas that they own the media.”
Galindo, who has raised almost no direct funding for her campaign, has benefitted from an opaque, newly formed Political Action Committee, which Democrats are charging is Republican-backed.
For some Jewish Democrats, the purported GOP-backed funding is evidence that Galindo’s anti-Israel rhetoric is a political liability rather than a strength.
“Republican dark money groups are spending big to elevate anti-Israel Democratic candidates who are out of touch with voters — because they’d rather face a weaker opponent in races that will decide the House majority in November. It’s cynical and it’s disturbing,” the president and CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel, Brian Romick, said in a statement to JTA.
Taylor noted that the GOP would only be promoting Galindo because the party wants Democrats “to nominate the worst candidate possible,” backing up the notion that her views are not appealing to voters.
The newly launched Lead Left PAC, which has not disclosed its donors, has spent more than $900,000 on ads and mailers promoting Galindo. Campaign finance watchdogs accuse the group of structuring its activity in a way that allowed it to bypass donor disclosures before voters cast their ballots.
Last week, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the PAC of having “strategically gamed federal reporting deadlines” in order to not disclose the sources of its funds ahead of the primaries.
The alleged GOP interference in the Texas race also spurred a row between the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Democratic Majority for Israel, which, after it called on Democrats to condemn Galindo, asked the RJC if it would “condemn the Republican Super PACs promoting her?”
The RJC, Texas GOP and Winred – a Republican donation platform that reportedly was at one point linked in the metadata for the website of Lead Left PAC – did not respond to a request for comment from JTA.
A local Democratic Party official familiar with the race told JTA in an emailed statement that it was likely voters did not know much about Galindo ahead of the race, but that with “more knowledge and media attention, voters are now much better equipped about their choices.”
The race has unfolded against the backdrop of a major Republican redistricting overhaul. Congressional District 35, where Galindo is competing, was impacted so heavily that the incumbent Rep. Greg Casar is now running for a different seat, while roughly 43% of residents of Bexar Country, which the district partially covers, were placed in a new district, according to the San Antonio Report.
On Wednesday, a host of Texas Democratic Party leaders released a joint statement decrying Galindo’s rhetoric, writing that her comments “do not reflect our values as Democrats or as Texans.”
Casar, who chairs the U.S. House Progressive Caucus and currently represents much of the district, made the unusual move last week of endorsing Garcia, Galindo’s moderate runoff opponent, telling the San Antonio Express-News that Galindo’s “very inappropriate remarks” sealed the deal.
“I’m a progressive Democrat. Johnny has been endorsed by the more conservative Blue Dogs. But we can all agree that he’s the candidate who can win this race,” Casar told the outlet.
Rabbi Mara Nathan, the senior rabbi of Temple Beth El, a Reform congregation in San Antonio, told JTA that she did not think Galindo had drummed up support heading into her campaign from voters over her antisemitic rhetoric, adding that “if that had been the case, we would have heard about it much earlier on.”
She explained, “An alarm would have been sounded pretty early, and not necessarily from Jewish people, but from other people in the San Antonio community who are our friends and allies.”
Looking to Tuesday’s primary, Taylor said he believed the public spotlight on Galindo’s remarks had changed the race by making voters more aware of her record.
“With this animus now out there and highly visible, people are really alerted to the danger of this woman and what her rhetoric could mean,” Taylor said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Texas candidate’s antisemitic rhetoric sparks outrage ahead of Tuesday runoff. Did it fuel her rise? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump announces he has ‘largely negotiated’ Iran deal, Strait of Hormuz opening
(JTA) — President Donald Trump announced in a post on Truth Social Saturday afternoon that a deal with Iran had been “largely negotiated,” despite saying earlier in the day that he was undecided on whether to agree to a proposal or resume strikes.
Trump described the deal as a “Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE” that was “subject to finalization” by the United States, Iran and other countries that participated in talks on Saturday. He noted that he’d “just had a very good call” with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain.
Trump said in his Truth Social post that, separately, he had spoken with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a conversation that “went very well.” There was no immediate statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office following Trump’s post.
“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” Trump added.
In the post, Trump said the deal would include the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, though a widely reported quote from Iran’s Fars New Agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said that Trump’s assertion was “incomplete and inconsistent with reality” and that the strait would remain under Iranian control.
Trump’s announcement comes over a month since he unilaterally extended a fragile U.S.-Iran ceasefire in April.
The announcement did not make mention of Iran’s nuclear program or highly enriched uranium, which Trump has previously stressed must be included in a deal.
Trump’s announcement came hours after he told Axios that he was a “solid 50/50” on whether he would be able to make a “good” deal with Iran, or else “blow them to kingdom come.”
Trump also told Axios that Netanyahu was “torn” over the potential deal but rejected the idea that the Israeli leader was “worried” that he might strike an unfavorable agreement.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump announces he has ‘largely negotiated’ Iran deal, Strait of Hormuz opening appeared first on The Forward.