Uncategorized
The Guardian Clarifies ‘Misunderstanding’ About ‘Antisemitic’ Opinion Piece Targeting Israeli-Founded Bakery
April 4, 2025, London, England, United Kingdom: Exterior view of a Gail’s bakery in Covent Garden. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The Guardian edited an opinion piece on Tuesday about a popular Israeli-founded bakery in the United Kingdom after the column was widely criticized for claiming that the store’s location near a Palestinian bakery was an “an act of heavy-handed high street aggression.”
The opinion piece was originally published on Saturday and mentioned Gail’s Bakery, which was founded by British-Israeli baker Gail Mejia in the 1990s and turned into a café chain with the help of Israeli entrepreneur Ran Avidan.
Gail’s now has almost 200 locations across the UK, and neither Mejia nor Avidan are still involved in the business. Gail’s largest shareholder is the American venture capital firm Bain Capital, which invests in Israeli defense and cybersecurity companies. The firm signed an open letter in support of Israel after Hamas’s invasion of the Jewish state on Oct. 7, 2023, but Gail’s has repeatedly stated that it has no ties to any foreign entity or government outside of the UK.
A newly opened branch of Gail’s in London’s Archway area had its windows smashed twice within a week of opening, and the store was vandalized with graffiti that read “Free Gaza,” “reject corporate Zionism,” and “Boycott Gail’s Funds Israeli Tech.”” An anti-Israel demonstration also took place at the same Gail’s location, according to reports. No arrests have been made for the vandalisms.
The Guardian opinion piece originally published on Saturday by the publication’s columnist Jonathan Liew is titled, “A corner of north London where food has become a battleground in the Israel-Gaza war.” It claimed Gail’s “very presence” in the Archway neighborhood near a Palestinian cafe called Cafe Metro was “symbolic” of “heavy-handed high-street aggression.” The accusation was made in a paragraph that said Bain Capital “invests heavily” in Israeli security companies.
“Campaigners point out that its parent company, Bain Capital, invests heavily in military technology, including Israeli security companies,” the piece previously read. “And so even though Gail’s describes itself as ‘a British business with no specific connections to any country or government outside the UK’, its very presence 20 meters away from a small independent Palestinian café feels quietly symbolic, an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression.”
On Tuesday, the claim about Gail’s “heavy-handed high street aggression” was moved in the article and now follows accusations about the bakery “accelerating gentrification and squeezing out smaller outlets.” The article also now says that Gail’s is acting just “like the multinationals that landed before it.” The mention about Bain Capital and Gail’s having “no specific connections to any country or government outside of the UK” has been moved to its own paragraph.
Liew also wrote that Cafe Metro was “a marker of the Palestinian identity that Israel’s bombs and snipers are so intent on erasing” and described Gail’s as a “predator” in the neighborhood. Those references have not been edited or removed from the article.
Jonathan Liew’s opinion piece for The Guardian before it was edited. Photo: Screenshot
Jonathan Liew’s opinion piece for The Guardian after edits were made on March 17. Photo: Screenshot
A note from the editor, posted at the end of the article, explained that the reference to Gail’s new location in London mimicking “an act of heavy-handed high street aggression” has been “repositioned to clarify it meant to refer to the described fears about the chain’s impact on small traders.” The note also tried to clarify the notion among critics that the article mitigated the recent acts of vandalism targeting Gail’s.
“A comment contrasting activism that is capable of influencing global events with ‘small acts of petty symbolism,’ which was not intended to minimize local vandalism but rather to suggest its misdirected futility, has been removed to avoid misunderstanding,” it said. Editors also removed from the article its introduction, which read: “A smashed window here, a provocative sticker there. In an age when protest feels increasingly meaningless, it’s no wonder that acts of petty symbolism are on the rise.”
Before the changes were made, the article had been accused of perpetuating antisemitism and was heavily criticized by Jewish groups, pro-Israel activists, politicians, radio hosts, Gail Bakery’s chief executive Tom Molnar, and journalists, including Jewish staff members at The Guardian. Gail’s supporters claimed the article inappropriately targeted the bakery chain because it happened to open a branch in close proximity to a Palestinian cafe.
The article has also been accused of attempting to justify the vandalism it has faced recently.
The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism said the piece was “encouraging anti-Israeli sentiment among its readers,” while the UK’s Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch called the article “antisemitic,” “utterly ridiculous,” and “appalling.” The media-monitoring organization CAMERA UK said the column was “downplaying the campaign of intimidation against a Jewish-linked business while presenting activists in a sympathetic light.”
Alex Gandler, the spokesperson for Israel’s Embassy in the UK, said the piece was “an astonishing exercise in bigotry disguised as moral commentary.”
“Beneath its surface lies a familiar and ugly trope: the re-packaging of antisemitic prejudice in fashionable political language … the insinuation that Jewish success or presence represents some form of encroachment by powerful ‘global’ forces,” he added. “For a newspaper that presents itself as a guardian of liberal values, publishing such rhetoric is deeply disappointing. Opinion pages should encourage debate and scrutiny. They should not revive centuries-old stereotypes under the guise of social commentary. This piece should never have been written, and it certainly should never have been published.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said: “It is not acceptable to relate to the opening of a bakery as an act of ‘aggression’ … Most people will find this article, seeped in tropes and innuendos, as deeply insidious, and will want to know why The Guardian thinks an op-ed seemingly justifying tensions between communities has a place on its pages.”
A pro-Israel protest was also held outside The Guardian headquarters in London on Wednesday in response to the offensive opinion piece.
The edits to the article were insufficient for many observers, including Camera UK. “So, it was all just a silly ‘misunderstanding,’” it posted on X. “No apology. Nothing to see here. And, certainly, NO antisemitism.”
“That is not how you correct this travesty of an ‘opinion,” Gandler wrote on X. “Correction in hindsight, after this failure should be a complete withdrawal, not a rewriting of history.”
Tom Molnar, the bakery chain’s chief executive, responded to the article on Monday.
“We live in a democracy that welcomes different opinions, but we will not accept hate and intimidation in our bakeries,” he said, as reported by The Times. “We are a neighborhood bakery that is on a mission to feed more people, better. We are firm believers that a healthy high street is a diverse one made up of many different businesses, from many different backgrounds, each playing its part. We want to serve the best possible food to our communities, and the vandalism we experienced in Archway serves as a distraction from doing just that.”
Uncategorized
Far-Left, Anti-Israel Candidates Flop in Illinois Congressional Races
Kat Abughazaleh (D-IL) participates in a door knocking event while campaigning for the 2026 Illinois Democratic primary election in Evanston, Illinois, US, March 14, 2026. Abughazaleh is running for Congress in Illinois’ 9th district. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Vondruska
A series of Democratic primary contests in Illinois on Tuesday delivered a decisive setback to progressive candidates aligned with the party’s left flank, underscoring the continued strength of more moderate voices and signaling potential limits to the electoral appeal of anti-Israel messaging within the party.
Across multiple congressional districts throughout the midwestern state, candidates backed by prominent progressive and anti-Israel groups failed to gain traction with voters, losing to opponents who emphasized pragmatism, coalition-building, and a more traditional Democratic policy agenda. The results mark what some observers are calling a sweeping defeat for the “Squad”-aligned movement in one of the country’s largest Democratic strongholds.
In Illinois’ 9th District, left-wing challenger Kat Abughazaleh was defeated by Daniel Biss, another progressive candidate with experience in local governance and a more moderate position on Israel, by a margin of 4 points. Notably, Abughazaleh, who is of Palestinian descent, repeatedly accused Israel of committing a “genocide” in Gaza and vowed to vote against additional US aid to the Jewish state. Biss, who is Jewish and an Israeli-American, issued criticism of Israel’s military operations in Gaza but refused to accuse the country of “genocide.” Biss has also expressed admiration for the country and its people despite criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, celebrated Abughazaleh’s defeat on Tuesday night. Notably, Biss did not accept financial assistance from AIPAC and repudiated the group in his victory speech, instead boosting J-Street, a progressive Zionist group.
“This district understands nuance and wants someone who accepts the reality of competing, even contradictory, priorities and values and realities. That point of view is not the point of view of AIPAC. AIPAC spends an unbelievable amount of money. Over $7 million to try to buy this seat,” Biss said in celebratory remarks.
“So enough about AIPAC. May tonight be the last night I utter their name. This victory belongs to J Street,” Biss continued.
In a statement, AIPAC lamented the defeat of their preferred candidate Laura Fine, while celebrating the successful thwarting of Abughazaleh.
“While disappointed Laura Fine didn’t prevail, the pro-Israel community is proud to have helped defeat would-be Squad members Kat Abughazaleh and Bushra Amiwala, who centered their campaigns on attacking Israel and demonizing pro-Israel Americans,” the group said in a statement.
Similar outcomes unfolded in the 8th and 2nd districts, where left-leaning insurgents fell short against candidates with broader institutional support and more moderate platforms. In the 8th District, AIPAC-supported Melissa Bean defeated left-wing insurgent Junaid Ahmed. Ahmed received endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), one of the most vocal critics of Israel in the US Congress, and Justice Democrats, a populist, far-left organizing group. Ahmed positioned himself as a staunch opponent of Israel, accusing Jerusalem of committing “genocide” in Gaza.
Donna Miller, who competed in the 2nd District, pulled off an improbable upset victory over the well-financed and establishment-backed Jesse Jackson Jr. AIPAC had poured approximately $2.4 million into the race, according to reports.
The outcomes come after months of intense campaigning and significant outside spending. Pro-Israel advocacy organizations and allied political action committees invested heavily in the races, backing candidates who supported a strong US-Israel relationship and opposing those whose campaigns centered heavily on criticism of Israel.
Supporters of such efforts argue the results reflect voter skepticism toward candidates who prioritize divisive foreign policy positions over domestic concerns. They say Democratic primary voters, even in reliably blue districts, remain broadly supportive of Israel and wary of rhetoric they view as overly ideological or polarizing.
Amid the war in Gaza, AIPAC had become a new flashpoint within the Democratic Party. Democratic hopefuls across the country were pressed about their connections to AIPAC and were pressured to disavow any funding from the group. Further, various surveys suggested that Democratic voters responded less favorably to candidates after learning they harbored connections to AIPAC. However, the mixed results on Tuesday indicate that anti-AIPAC sentiment was not as animating as left-wing pundits predicted.
Progressive groups, however, downplayed the failures of their ideologically aligned candidates, pointing to the scale of outside spending in the races and arguing that well-funded campaigns overwhelmed grassroots challengers and shaped voter perceptions through aggressive advertising. Some also contended that messaging in the races blurred ideological distinctions, making it more difficult for voters to differentiate between candidates.
The Illinois results could carry national implications as Democrats look ahead to future elections. While progressive candidates have found success in certain districts, particularly in urban areas, the latest outcomes suggest that their coalition may face challenges in more competitive or diverse electorates.
Uncategorized
Message From a Democratic Legislator: Iran’s Long Oppressed People Deserve to Be Free
Cars burn in a street during an anti-regime protest in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 8, 2026. Photo: Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Yesterday’s election results in Illinois sent an unmistakable message: the American people are rejecting the far left’s reflexive opposition to the war with Iran.
In Illinois, every member of the Squad on the ballot lost their primary, a stunning repudiation of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wing of our party that has spent years excusing Iranian aggression, undermining our alliance with Israel, and treating supporters of human rights and democracy as warmongers. The voters have spoken, and I am proud to stand with them.
As an elected Democrat, I have no interest in endless wars in the Middle East. What is happening in Iran is, I believe, not a repeat of the mistakes of the Bush administration. It is instead an American-led effort to put an end to the war that Iran has been waging against its people, its neighbors, and the United States of America for the past 47 years.
The people of Iran have long suffered at the hands of their government. The Islamic Republic denies basic human rights to Iranians, particularly women, the LGBTQ+ community, and religious and ethnic minorities. As a Democrat, the Islamic Republic stands in opposition to every value that I cherish.
Iran’s now former Supreme Leader, the theocrat Ayatollah Khamenei, deserves no mourning. On the other hand, Iran’s long-suffering women deserve both our prayers and our efforts to eliminate their tormentors. The women of Iran are subject to a puritanical head-to-toe dress code in public. They are also subject to “male guardianship” by their fathers, husbands, or other male relatives.
The situation is equally as bad for Iran’s beleaguered LGBTQ+ community. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and can be punished by death, sometimes carried out by hanging victims from giant construction cranes in the center of major cities, a medieval punishment with a surreal modern twist.
Non-Muslims are similarly persecuted. Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians have some protections as “Peoples of the Book,” but these are quite limited in practice. Iranian Jews have been arbitrarily arrested and tortured for allegedly “spying for Israel,” and Iranian Christians have been sentenced to up to 280 years in prison for religious practices as simple as putting up a Christmas tree. Believers in other faiths are not tolerated at all by the regime.
Against such intolerable oppression, it is no wonder that the Iranian people have repeatedly expressed their desire for change.
The Iranian people are considered the most pro-American population in the Middle East. Yet every time the people have sought redress of their grievances, they have been violently crushed by their government. Although the people of Iran have elected reformist presidents, these elected presidents are figureheads who are sidelined by the unelected “Supreme Leader.”
Beyond its borders, Iran has waged war and slaughtered civilians in an effort to export its “Islamic Revolution.”
Iran militarily supported the unpopular Assad dictatorship in Syria until it was finally overthrown in 2024 after more than 13 years of civil war in Syria. Iran has also supported terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis in their bids for power against the legitimate governments of Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Iran also aided Hamas, which seized power by force in Gaza in 2007, enabling its brutal invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, during which more than 1,200 civilians were massacred, including dozens of Americans, and more than 250 (including 12 Americans) were taken hostage to Gaza.
When Operation Epic Fury began, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tweeted, “President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war.”
Senator Sanders could not be more mistaken. The right-wing extremists waging a premeditated war are the fanatical Islamist clerics in Tehran. This is a war they have been waging since 1979 against their own people, their neighbors, and against Americans.
The goal of Operation Epic Fury is not endless conflict; it is to end this conflict once and for all. A better future is possible — a future where Iran can join the community of free nations, where women can live without fear of being beaten or even murdered for not covering their hair, where minorities can practice their faith openly, where LGBTQ+ people can live openly, and where citizens can choose their leaders through real elections.
I believe that one day, the Iranian people will experience freedom and build the peaceful, democratic nation they deserve. And I believe that Operation Epic Fury will lead to the future that the Iranian people deserve.
Democratic state legislator Rep. Alma Hernandez represents Arizona’s 20th House District in Tucson.
Uncategorized
US House Report Finds Faculty Driving Campus Antisemitism While Institutions Protect Them
Protesters gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall, in New York City, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
A new damning report by Republicans on the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce slammed higher education officials for having done little to abate faculty antisemitism, as the issue continues amid allegedly craven leadership and institutional whitewashing of professorial misconduct.
Titled, “How Campuses Became Hotbeds: The Rise of Radical Antisemitism on College Campuses,” the report is comprehensive, chronicling what has been described as the “campus antisemitism crisis” from the hours and days following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. In the wake of the attack, anti-Zionist student and faculty groups throughout the US celebrated the atrocities while, according to lawmakers, being protected by college administrations even as they escalated their conduct to violence, harassment, and flagrant violations of federal civil rights law.
It adds to a growing body of literature which explores institutional protection afforded to faculty who utter antisemitic comments against Jews similar to what other colleges have condemned when directed at other minority groups.
The report listed a slew of examples: Haverford College president Wendy Raymond extolled a professor who called Jewish community advocates “racist genocidaires”; University of California president Richard Lyons described a professor who cheered Oct. 7, while proclaiming that he “could have been one of those broke through,” as a “fine scholar”; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) refused to rule in favor of a Jewish student who filed a discrimination complaint disclosing a pattern of alleged abuse perpetrated by linguistic professor Michel DeGraff, which included his threatening to single out the student as an example of “Zionist mind infection.”
“Antisemitism continues to spread like wildfire at schools across the nation,” committee chairman Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) said in a statement on Tuesday. “Over the past several years, we’ve seen university leaders surrender to the radical demands of terror supporting mobs targeting Jewish students and faculty. This weakness has emboldened hatred and allowed campuses to devolve into hotbeds of radical antisemitism.”
He added, “Republicans remain committed to holding college and university leaders accountable for their failures. Time and time again, school leaders appeared before my committee and failed to take responsibility for the hatred they let spiral out of control.”
Colleges need robust oversight from Congress, the report concluded, imploring higher education to do its part by adopting the widely recognized International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, reforming admissions to foster viewpoint diversity, and fighting antisemitism as doggedly as it has combatted other forms of racism.
Another similar report, released in February by the AMCHA Initiative, touched on faculty antisemitism in the University of California (UC) system. It documented dozens of examples of faculty antisemitism, including their calling for driving Jewish institutions off campus; founding pro-Hamas, Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapters; and endorsing institutional adoption of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. It also said that FJP chapters offered more than supportive words, “defending and helping orchestrate boycott-aligned activism (including encampment demands), seeking to deplatform Israeli speakers, and filing an amicus brief … that denied Zionism’s place within Jewish identity and defended exclusionary encampment conduct toward Zionist Jewish students, including expulsion from campus spaces.”
The AMCHA Initiative argued that the University of California system is a microcosm of faculty antisemitism, a vidid portrait of “how concentrated networks of faculty activists on each campus, often operating through academic units and faculty-led advocacy formations, convert institutional platforms into vehicles for organized anti-Zionist advocacy and mobilization.”
The AMCHA Initiative explored faculty antisemitism before, stressing that while student activities drive headlines, faculty act with impunity and wield governing power which shapes the campus culture and limits the power of college presidents to oppose them.
In September 2024, the organization published a groundbreaking study which showed that FJP is fueling antisemitic hate crimes, efforts to impose divestment on endowments, and the collapse of discipline and order on college campuses. Using data analysis, AMCHA researchers said they were able to establish a correlation between a school’s hosting an FJP chapter and anti-Zionist and antisemitic activity. For example, the researchers found that the presence of FJP on a college campuses increased by seven times “the likelihood of physical assaults and Jewish students” and increased by three times the chance that a Jewish student would be subject to threats of violence and death.
The Algemeiner has previously covered this issue as well. In February, for example, it learned that, according to a lawsuit, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University assigned a Jewish student a project on “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.”
Similar incidents have come at a fast clip since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre: A Cornell University professor praised the terrorist group’s atrocities, which included mass sexual assaults; a Columbia University professor exalted Hamas terrorists who paraglided into a music festival to murder Israeli youth as the “air force of the Palestinian resistance”; and a Harvard University FJP chapter shared an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Zionists as murderers of Blacks and Arabs.
In Tuesday’s statement, Wahlberg said the committee’s report should put higher education on notice.
“If university leaders forget their legal responsibility to address discrimination of any form on campus, my colleagues will remind them.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
