Uncategorized
From Rutgers speaker to Kristof column, disputed dog rape claim against Israel goes mainstream
(JTA) — A week after a university commencement speaker was canceled because of a tweet claiming that Israel trains dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, the allegation leapt into the pages of The New York Times.
The columnist Nicholas Kristof included the claim in a column alleging widespread sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.
Detailing the account of an unnamed Gaza journalist who says guards summoned a dog when he was imprisoned in 2024, Kristof writes, “He tried to dislodge the dog, he said, but it penetrated him.” Linking to a range of pro-Palestinian sources, he notes that other prisoners had recounted similar experiences elsewhere.
Israel has rejected all of the allegations in Kristof’s column, which has elicited condemnation from Jewish groups for what they say is a “a modern-day blood libel” even as some say they believe it is important to take seriously claims of abuse in Israeli prisons. The New York Times has stood behind the column and said Kristof’s column reflects rigorous reporting and standards.
Neither Israeli officials nor The New York Times have commented specifically on the dog-rape claim, and the newspaper and Kristof did not respond to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s requests for comment. But a canine training expert said the allegations seem implausible if not completely impossible.
James Crosby, a retired police lieutenant and canine aggression expert affiliated with Harvard University’s Canine Brain Project, told JTA that it was “highly unlikely that anybody is going to be able to train a dog to successfully commit a sexual assault.”
Crosby said dogs can be trained to carry out some behaviors that could be seen as sexual but he was much more skeptical of the central claim that Kristof described.
“You could train the physical behaviors of jumping up and moving the hips back and forth and so forth. That is not necessarily sexual behavior from a dog,” Crosby said. “The actual penetration and so forth, I think that would be a lot more problematic.”
Israeli human rights groups have separately alleged both sexual assault in security prisons and the use of dogs to intimidate and assault Palestinian prisoners.
Kristof is defending the claim that the two phenomena happen in tandem, tweeting on Tuesday, “To those who say that canine rape is impossible, despite the many Palestinians who have described it, I’d note that at least three different medical journal articles discuss rectal injuries in humans from anal penetration by dogs. Sigh.”
A handful of records in medical literature have concluded that injuries to humans came from being penetrated by a dog. A review of the cases included in PubMed, a medical research database, showed that most reflect instances where humans forced dogs to perform sexual acts on them, but one 2019 case report from Uruguay described injuries to a 6 year old girl that a physician attributed to the family’s pet.
Crosby said that he was unsure if it was biologically possible to train a dog to have an erection on command but stopped short of saying that training dogs to rape humans was “impossible.”
“I’m not saying it can’t happen because, I mean, I’m a retired police officer, and I’ve also been dealing with fatal dog attacks and dog stuff for a long time, and there are always people out there that are twisted enough to do what you don’t think they can,” Crosby said. “The depths of human stupidity and nastiness are just always unplumbable.”
Whatever the case, it’s clear that the dog-rape claim has escalated rapidly as a charge against Israel in recent months.
The accusation has circulated for nearly two years but became turbocharged only in the last month, according to Travis Hawley, a Jewish self-described “open source intelligence” analyst who works as a contractor for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is also affiliated with the Network Contagion Research Institute, a center affiliated with Rutgers University that produces research about how information spreads online. The institute referred him to JTA.
After seeing the discourse about Kristof’s column, Hawley decided to trace the claim’s path on social media. He shared his findings with JTA on Tuesday.
Hawley found that the claim made a brief splash on social media in 2024 before falling dormant until last month. The 2024 cycle stemmed from an interview with the director general of the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry posted by Al Jazeera’s Arabic-language X account in June, according to his research. The official said that Israelis “made these dogs carry out vile actions against these detainees.”
Al Jazeera’s post got relatively little traction on its own. But days later, the account “Suppressed News” shared it in English, increasing the spread and introducing the word “rape” into the online discourse.
The account TrackAIPAC, which opposes the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. politics, shared that post, Hawley found, as did the journalist Ryan Grim, whose coverage often criticizes Israel, and Briahna Joy Gray, a former press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign who has frequently shared anti-Israel posts that have drawn allegations of antisemitism.
After the June 2024 cycle, the claim simmered online but was relatively inconspicuous compared to more prominent allegations against Israel, including that it was deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza, a claim that Israel similarly rejected as a blood libel.
Then in March, Israeli authorities dropped charges against Israeli prison guards who had been accused of sexually assaulting prisoners at the Sde Teiman detention facility, in an incident caught on video that had shocked many Israelis, roiled the country’s security establishment and fueled allegations that Israel was seeking to cover up abuse.
Hawley found that Sde Teiman’s return to the news cycle provided “the contextual hook the dormant June 2024 dog-rape narrative needed to re-ignite.”
Weeks later, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based NGO that Israel has accused of having affiliations with Hamas, issued a report promoting the allegation. The organization is frequently cited by critics of Israel, and some of its claims have overlapped with those of independent sources. But its reports have also argued that Israel exhumes Palestinians to steal their organs — a claim with no evidence that medical experts say is impossible.
Euro-Med’s founder and chairman, Ramy Abdu, had shared the dog rape allegation during the 2024 wave. Now his organization said it had interviewed former prisoners who had experienced the phenomenon themselves.
Just days later, the claim had its biggest moment online yet, when an Israeli living in the United States, a former UCLA researcher and prominent online anti-Israel influencer named Shaiel Ben-Ephraim posted that an Israeli source had confirmed the dog rape allegation to him. He did not name the source or offer any additional evidence.
Ben-Ephraim had long faced challenges to his credibility from pro-Israel voices, in part connected to his admitted record of misconduct. But Hawley said Ben-Ephraim’s post, which echoed comments the Israeli had made on a pro-Palestinian podcast days earlier, appeared pivotal to the claim’s ascendance. He said Ben-Ephraim had injected a crucial element to the claim structure: that Israelis, and not just Palestinians and their allies, believed the dog rape claim.
Before April, “it wasn’t some acceptable narrative. It was allegations and bots and stuff like that,” said Hawley, who emphasized that he could not say whether the allegation was true. “It took a couple viral moments in the last two months before you could call it, I guess, mainstream.”
Hawley’s findings lined up with those published independently last week by Eli Kowaz, an American-Israeli analyst who formerly worked at the Israel Policy Forum. Kowaz published an essay arguing that the dog rape allegation was not credible, several days before Kristof’s column.
“You can hold two things at once: that Israeli detention conditions have produced credible, documented abuse allegations warranting serious investigation — and that a viral claim about trained rape dogs, built on a collapsed case and an advocacy podcast, does not meet any serious evidentiary bar,” he wrote. “Choosing which claims to believe before examining them tells you what the ‘evidence’ was ever actually for.”
Days after Ben-Ephraim’s tweet, the dog-rape claim had such reach that Ramy Elghandour, a bio-tech entrepreneur who had been invited to give the commencement address at Rutgers University’s engineering school, included it in a tweet condemning Israel.
“They’ve committed genocide,” Elghandour wrote in the tweet, a response to a Democratic lawmaker’s vow not to allow additional military aid to Israel. “They’re running dungeons where they train dogs to sexually assault prisoners … Weapons embargo is the absolute minimum.”
His invitation to speak was rescinded, but the claim was still climbing. Days later, Kristof’s column was published, bringing the claim to a vast audience including many people who would not previously have been exposed to it but who may have followed Kristof’s award-winning, impactful career as a columnist reporting about the Darfur genocide, human trafficking and global poverty. As evidence, Kristof’s column cited the Euro-Med report and linked to Ben-Ephraim’s post.
The prominence of the platform surprised even Hawley, who routinely watches discourse cycles reach unexpected heights. “To go from very obvious anti-Israel-narrative people, and then to the New York Times directly, is like, OK, how do we make that big jump?” he asked.
To some critics of Kristof’s column, the answer is that a well oiled pro-Palestinian propaganda machine had worked exactly as intended.
“His attempt to slip a salacious ‘dog rape’ trope from reportedly Hamas-linked operatives into the paper under the guise of an opinion piece is a failure of basic gatekeeping,” tweeted Albert Aaron, a pro-Israel Jewish New Yorker who posted that he was canceling his subscription, in one representative social media comment.
“Kristof quotes people who celebrated October 7 and want Israel destroyed, and will lie to achieve that goal. We know how the lies in this story made their way into it, where they came from and what purpose they serve,” Haviv Rettig Gur, an Israeli commentator, said in a viral post in which he described feeling a sense of relief to encounter what he believed were obvious lies in Kristof’s column. One of them, he said: “Dogs did not rape anyone.”
Claims of dogs trained to rape have been attached in the past to some of history’s most vicious figures. The journalist Lawrence Wright wrote that Egypts used dogs to rape prisoners under the regime that fell during the Arab Spring in 2011.
Ingrid Olderock, a Chilean-born German, is known as “The Dog Lady” because of allegations that she trained German shepherds to rape female dissidents during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
And JTA reported in the 1980s about allegations that Klaus Barbie, the Nazi Gestapo leader known as the “Butcher of Lyon” for his brutality, had trained a dog to rape women.
Some who are inclined to believe the dog rape allegation about Israel say the stories about Barbie have difficult implications for those who reject the claim.
“Dogs were used to rape humans during the Holocaust. I did not expect Israeli propaganda to turn into literal Holocaust denial,” tweeted the progressive journalist Ziad Jilani in response to a Jewish physician who had written, “Dogs cannot anatomically rape humans. As a physician, I thought I would just point that out. Why are antisemites such idiots?”
The Pinochet example and others like it that allege canine rape of women is not relevant in the case of the prisoners Kristof spoke to, Rabbi Natan Slifkin argued in a Substack essay on Wednesday. Slifkin runs Israel’s Biblical Museum of Natural History, which reflects his passion for and expertise in zoology.
“Without getting into gruesome detail, suffice it to say that the stories were not comparable. There are physical differences between male and female humans, and physical and behavioral differences between male humans and male dogs, alongside other differences in circumstances and in the descriptions of what happened in each case,” Slifkin wrote.
Noting that allegations have also circulated that the Israeli military has trained sharks and eagles to surveil and attack Palestinians, he continued, “The general view of experts in canine behavior … is that dogs cannot be trained to rape men.”
While Crosby, the dog scientist, said he was familiar with accounts of law enforcement and military personnel using dogs to intimidate individuals, citing the illegal use of dogs at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, he said he had never encountered an example in his research of a dog raping a human being. If misconduct involving dogs is taking place in Israeli prisons, he said, he is skeptical of the specific claims of rape.
“I would be more focused on the idea that they’re doing it as a form of intimidation and harassment,” Crosby said, “rather than literally having the animals sexually abuse somebody.”
The post From Rutgers speaker to Kristof column, disputed dog rape claim against Israel goes mainstream appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
I was born after 9/11. I still carry the memories of that day.
Earlier this week, I was talking with my mother over the phone about her experience on 9/11. She walked me through the familiar parts — how she was in our Upper West Side apartment when she learned about the attacks from a relative, how she went to the garage to get the car so they could drive to a friend’s house upstate once she realized the attacks were acts of terror. There were still hijacked planes in the air, and she worried New York City might be targeted again. Then, she said, “This part is going to make me cry.”
I hadn’t remembered what came next, but suddenly it came back to me. “Oh no, me too,” I said.
While she waited for my father to come back uptown from his office in the Financial District, she stopped inside a fire station across from the garage. Inside was a lone firefighter, who’d stayed behind to man the station while the rest of his company was inside the towers. He was watching the news on television, and my mom stood next to him, watching too, when the towers fell.
“We just lost so many men,” he said.
I wasn’t there when it happened; I wasn’t even alive. But I’d heard this story before, I’d walked dozens of times past that same fire station, which now has a plaque commemorating the seven firefighters who died on 9/11. Hearing the story again on the phone, I found myself walking down the streets of Washington D.C., bawling.
I’m 23, born a year-and-a-half after 9/11. Most Americans my age learned about the attacks in school, as history. I’m part of the 16% who learned through family or friends.
The discovery happened by accident, when I was in kindergarten. My mom and I were in a children’s store on the Upper West Side, when we started flipping through a picture book about the history of New York City. Most of the book was unremarkable, but the end was unexpected: a scene of the smoldering twin towers.
I forget what exactly happened next, but here’s what I do remember: My mom was upset that the shop hadn’t provided a warning about the book’s end, and I was confused about why she was upset. I was five, too young to understand the image and never one to let a question go unanswered; I must have pestered her until she offered up an explanation.
She hadn’t been prepared to tell me about terrorism. She’d been evading the topic for some time, telling half-truths to avoid it. When I’d ask her why we had to take our shoes off in line at the airport, she’d just say it was to make sure no one had anything dangerous, leaving out the part about how a man had tried to get on a flight with bombs hidden in his shoes.
“9/11 is a huge thing for a parent to have to tell a kid about,” my mom told me this week. “You were a happy kid, and I didn’t want you to get scared or traumatized.”
The events, and impacts, of that day slowly unfolded for me as the years passed. I learned that my father had watched from Battery Park as the South Tower fell; he ran westward as plumes of smoke billowed toward him. I learned that my parents had friends who’d died in the towers, one of whom was the father of a boy I grew up with. I remember going to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum when it opened in 2014, feeling sick as I watched footage of people jumping out of the towers.
The New York Times recently interviewed dozens of Gen Z Americans about 9/11. I was struck by how disconnected many felt from the event. “It’s hard to feel sad about something that you don’t remember,” said Annika Heegaard, a 25-year-old now living in New York.
But for me, 9/11 doesn’t feel quite so far away. By now I’ve lived through other mass casualty events, like the Parkland shooting and the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. But 9/11 is the only tragedy that my family members had such a direct connection to. “It was devastating,” my mom said.
I think the reason I can remember the exact moment I found out about 9/11 is because it changed my view of the world. I remember being almost unable to comprehend that anyone would do what the hijackers did. I wasn’t, as my mom feared, traumatized by learning about the attacks; I didn’t fear for my safety each day. But the knowledge was in some ways a loss of innocence — a discovery that people could do awful things and that the world wasn’t as safe a place as I had assumed.
The post I was born after 9/11. I still carry the memories of that day. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The DSA’s latest win was not about Israel — and it hurts the Jewish community to insist it was
When Democratic socialist David Morales defeated the incumbent mayor of Providence, Brett Smiley, in a historic primary win this week in Rhode Island, the election quickly became part of a narrative that has been coalescing around progressive political wins in the last year — the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City, Abdul El-Sayed’s primary win in Michigan, the sweep of DSA-backed candidates in New York City’s recent primaries. The idea is that this race was all about Israel — that it turned on a struggle between Zionists and pro-Palestinian activists.
A Jewish Telegraphic Agency story on Morales’s win features a quote from the founder of the Rhode Island-Israel Collaborative that Morales’s campaign was “fueled by pro-Palestinians and Israeli haters.” The founder of the far-right Rhode Island Coalition for Israel called some of Morales’ stances “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.” Jewish Insider published a story the day before the primary headlined, “Antisemitism roils Providence mayoral race.” The Times of Israel’s story on the election is titled, “Jewish mayor of Providence loses Democratic primary to anti-Israel challenger.” (Smiley converted to Judaism in 2024, and made a controversial visit to Israel in 2025.)
But this narrative is false: Israel did not play a decisive role in this election. In reality, Morales was laser-focused on affordability, and — like most progressive candidates this year — rarely, if ever, brought up Israel unprompted. Indeed, the defining issue for the Morales campaign was not Israel, but rent stabilization.
Last April, Smiley vetoed legislation passed by Providence’s City Council to cap annual rent hikes at 4%. This ordinance is desperately needed: A recent study found that Providence is the least affordable city for renters in the country. Longtime residents are getting priced out, and essentially everyone who rents — and renters comprise 59% of the households in the city — understands that our trajectory is simply not sustainable.
By vetoing the most significant-ever attempt to bring this crisis under control, Smiley made this a race about a challenger fighting to make Providence affordable and an incumbent prioritizing his corporate donors, who gave Smiley a historically large $1.3 war chest for his campaign. (Morales had less than $300,000, largely from individual donors.)
This issue served as precisely the kind of defining contrast that pro-Israel Super PAC spending became in recent congressional elections elsewhere. Support from AIPAC has provided an impossible-to-obscure contrast to Democratic primary voters in races such as Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, New York’s 10th Congressional District, and Michigan’s Senate primary. But in Providence, the scandal wasn’t AIPAC donors — it was the wealthy developers and corporate landlords who funded Smiley’s campaign.
It is true that Morales criticized Smiley’s active participation in the Combat Antisemitism Movement, a project so Trumpian that the Jewish Federations of North America and Jewish Council for Public Affairs both left the group after it released a video claiming that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are antisemitic. Morales also came out in support of a ballot initiative that would require the City of Providence to divest from the debt of foreign countries “conducting ethnic cleansing, apartheid, illegal military occupation, or genocide,” as determined by U.S. and international law. Some of Morales’s supporters — and in particular some portion of his army of campaign volunteers — were undoubtedly motivated by an appreciation for Morales’s willingness to take a moral stance. But it simply wasn’t a top five, or even (by my estimation) a top 10 issue in this race.
And I don’t understand the inclination to claim otherwise. Certainly it doesn’t make sense for members of the Israel lobby; after all, having another election be lost due to voters’ anger over a politician’s fealty to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not good for their political project. But more importantly, these allegations — particularly the false claim that this race was somehow “roiled” by antisemitism — are harmful to Rhode Island’s Jewish community as a whole.
Take, for example, the “antisemitism” referenced by Jewish Insider, which consisted, in total, of a few instances in which a Hitler mustache and devil horns were drawn on Smiley’s campaign signs. Of course, defacing political signs is never good, and Morales immediately condemned the vandalism. But as a Jewish former elected official who experienced actual antisemitism over the course of my time in Rhode Island politics, I have to laugh at the idea that this graffiti was antisemitic.
To compare someone to Hitler is basically to say they’re the worst person ever. It’s often a problematic comparison (because almost nobody is actually as evil as Hitler), but it’s not antisemitic to say, in effect, “Hitler was bad, and so is this other guy.” And vandals were drawing devil’s horns on pictures of Smiley years before he converted. In fact, I don’t think the average Providence voter even knows Smiley is Jewish; it’s certainly not an important part of his political identity, given that he literally wasn’t yet Jewish when he first won election to the mayor’s office in 2022, or during his prior run for the seat in 2014.
Antisemitism is a real and growing problem — in our country, and here in Rhode Island. Just a few years ago, dozens of swastika-brandishing neo-Nazis rallied a block from my home. Every time that cynical politicians cry wolf on this threat, they are minimizing its danger in the eyes of most people, making our community less prepared to respond to actual incidents of antisemitism when they occur.
Even worse, when some partisans of Israel claim that everyone who dares to say Israel is committing genocide and apartheid is an antisemite — that is, someone who hates all Jews — the implication is that Israel’s wars and violence against Palestinians are somehow projects undertaken by all Jews, rather than the crimes of a specific far-right government and its supporters. And if you repeat that message often enough, some people are going to start believing it — which certainly does not make me or my young Jewish sons safer.
David Morales ran on a pledge to build a Providence for all. “All” includes members of the Jewish community, many of whom — including myself, and Morales’s campaign manager and field director, to name just a few — are excited to support his vision. It is to no one’s benefit — least of all Providence’s Jews — to try to seed conflict and distrust in what should be a moment of profound hope and possibility for our whole city.
The post The DSA’s latest win was not about Israel — and it hurts the Jewish community to insist it was appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish and Muslim leaders avoided the hardest interfaith topic for years, and now face a ‘massive fault line’
It’s been a quarter century since a wave of distrust and violence against Muslims swept across America in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. But in some pockets of New York City and across the U.S., Jewish neighbors extended a hand of friendship and an interfaith movement was reborn.
Dialogues turned into dinners. Dinners spawned theatrical collaborations. Collaborations turned out volunteers to feed the homeless and sent interfaith teams to Capitol Hill.
Still, as the Palestinian uprising known as the Second Intifada continued to unfold in the Middle East, even the most promising partnerships avoided the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“We deliberately parked it on the side,” said Daisy Khan, the former executive director of American Society for Muslim Advancement and founder of the Women’s Islamic Initiative. “We called it the elephant in the room that none of us could handle.”
Now, 25 years after the terrorist attacks that inspired a movement, leaders realize that silence was a critical mistake.
As this year’s Jewish High Holidays, a time of remembrance and repentance, begin at sundown on the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, American Jewish leaders are reflecting on mistakes made and words they wish they could take back, confronting rising antisemitism, and along with their longtime Muslim partners, asking: Where do we go from here?
“Rosh Hashanah is known as Yom Hazikaron, the day of remembrance,” said Rabbi Joshua Davidson of Manhattan’s Temple Emanu-El, adding that remembrance usually refers to the hope that God will remember the covenant with the Jewish people. “When you talk about a day of remembrance, you also talk about the experiences that have shaped us into who we are. 9/11 certainly is an experience that has shaped us into who we are. Anyone who lived in New York is forever changed by that day.”
Interfaith bridge-building
On Sept. 11, 2001, Davidson was a young associate rabbi at another Manhattan institution, Central Synagogue. Feeling otherwise helpless that morning as the towers fell, he headed straight to the nearby mosque on 55th Street to assure his Muslim neighbors that they would not be judged by the actions of the terrorists – his instinct born from years of interfaith dialogue already underway.
The same instinct led President George W. Bush to the Islamic Center of Washington D.C., a week later to proclaim, “Islam is peace.” But that perspective did not prevail in all corners.
Prominent evangelical figures condemned Islam as “evil and wicked.” Mosques were set ablaze, and the Justice Department in the three months after the attacks labeled nine murders as “possible hate crimes.” Despite the community’s fear, the term “Islamophobia” was not widely embraced, as if it was a product of Muslims’ imaginations.
“So many American Muslims were experiencing the anxiety that President Bush recognized right away,” Davidson told the Forward. “So 9/11 crystallized for many the importance of the work of interfaith bridge building … We can learn from one another. When the world becomes complicated and your own community is in jeopardy or is being targeted, you realize how valuable it is to have those friendships.”
Those existing friendships and the ground rules that had sustained them laid the foundation for the aftermath of Sept. 11 and propelled many individuals and groups working behind the scenes to publicly counter what seemed to be an anti-Muslim zeitgeist. While the previous approach to interfaith work had been intimate Shabbat dinners, Ramadan iftars, and discussion groups, the new approach involved rallies, live performances and large-scale programs.
On the morning of Sept. 12, Israeli cellist Udi Bar-David called someone with whom he had collaborated a few times – Majid Alsayegh, an Iraqi-born Muslim engineer and architect in Philadelphia. Determined to offer a constructive response, they formed a team and in Spring 2002 launched a nonprofit for creative intercultural exchanges.
“Because of the tensions of Muslim and Jewish, Arabic and Jewish communities, because of the violence, we felt we needed to speak up and do more,” Alsayegh told the Forward, “to help them understand that dialogue in many forms, including music, is much more powerful than shooting each other.”
Seeking to help audiences listen with less anger, more empathy, artists from B’nai Jeshurun, a synagogue on New York’s Upper West Side, teamed up with Methodists and Muslims to present hard truths gathered from more than 100 New Yorkers. The project titled “Same Difference” later became a documentary.
In the years that followed, connections became more purposeful and direct. In 2008, Rabbi Marc Schneier’s Foundation for Ethnic Understanding launched an annual Weekend of Twinning, which paired scores of synagogues and mosques to explore the parallels and similarities within their traditions. It also enabled them to compare notes about the discrimination each faced as religious minorities and band together to fight the hatred that targeted both.
Khan cherishes the time she spent in synagogues and the friendships she formed there.
“We had such deep ties and such deep relations we weren’t afraid to go to bat for one another,” Khan said. “I think those relationships have even served us to this day.”
‘A massive fault line’
Still, cracks began to show. In 2010, Khan and her husband at the time, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, proposed Cordoba House, a mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan. Modeled after JCCs across the country and named for a city in Spain that once had been a center of peaceful coexistence, the proposed facility would offer prayer space, a wedding venue and a swimming pool.
Opponents focused on the location: two blocks from Ground Zero. Many Jewish leaders endorsed the project. Abe Foxman, longtime leader of the Anti-Defamation League, did not.
“We believe that in this place of tragedy and pain and anguish … if you want to heal, the best way to heal is not to do it in your face.”
Foxman, who died in May, never apologized for his remarks, but his successor Jonathan Greenblatt later acknowledged “we were wrong, plain and simple.”
In 2011, when U.S. Congressman Peter King of New York, then-chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, held hearings on Capitol Hill denouncing the radicalization inside American mosques, Jewish friends showed their support by helping to organize a “Today, I am Muslim too” rally in Times Square.
Those shows of solidarity grew throughout the years. Jewish partners joined crowds at airports to protest the Trump administration’s executive order on immigration. Congregations helped each other pick up the pieces when their houses of worship or sacred sites came under assault. But the tougher conversation, probing where people stood on the Middle East conflict and why, remained largely untouched.
As anyone in interfaith relations or diplomacy of any kind will tell you, constructive conversations are best had before there’s a crisis. That crisis arrived on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel, murdering more than 1,200 and taking 250 hostages. The war that followed in Gaza sparked virulent protests on college campuses and in public squares and a spike in antisemitic incidents. It also created a chasm of grief too deep and wide for many partnerships to survive.
“When Gaza happened, it created a massive fault line,” Khan said. “For Jews it reinforced existential fears about Jewish safety. For the Palestinians: ‘It’s our existential thing too. We feel we’re getting wiped out.’”
But because many conversation partners had for years avoided the hardest topic of all, they missed the opportunity to feel the emotional weight carried on both sides and hold that tension. When the grief, trauma and fear of Oct. 7 was thrust upon them, leaders could not adequately navigate the emotional landscape to offer moral clarity or comfort, Khan said.
“We could have called for calm,” she said. “We could’ve said that human loss is terrible. We could’ve said a lot of things that calmed people down. None of that happened. It became very tribal.”
Laboratory phase
Dr. Ari Gordon, director of Muslim Jewish Relations for American Jewish Committee, said while some Muslim partners have walked away from their joint advocacy work, some have stayed in touch. Khan and Alsayegh remain committed and hold out hope that their Muslim peers will return and give it another try.
“Everyone in this space has had the hits they’ve taken after Oct. 7,” Gordon said. “Relationships are a long-term investment. They can take dips and turns, peaks and valleys. On a personal level, as a friend, you have the right to say I want to engage with a person. I don’t want to. As a Jewish community we have a responsibility to keep our doors open.”
But it’s also important to keep the trajectory and time frame in perspective. The transformation of Christian-Jewish relations offers a lesson in that regard.
“The idea that a relationship can be beset by conflict and challenges for centuries and undergo transformation,” he said, “is one that I carry in my mind all the time.”
Gordon calls the past 25 years a “laboratory phase of Muslim-Jewish relations.” The Shabbat dinners, iftars, dialogue groups, coalitions, concerts – they all have fortified a connective tissue between American Muslims and Jews that did not exist 25 years ago.
“That trust may not have been sufficient to meet the stress test of October 7 and the continued war but it was definitely there and it didn’t go away,” he said. “After October 7 we entered a new phase and it’s one where we’re not going to go back to the way it used to be, but build something new.”
The post Jewish and Muslim leaders avoided the hardest interfaith topic for years, and now face a ‘massive fault line’ appeared first on The Forward.
