Uncategorized
A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary
(JTA) — Israel’s new governing coalition has been called the “most right-wing” in the nation’s history. That’s heartening to supporters who want the country to get tough on crime and secure Jewish rights to live in the West Bank, and dismaying to critics who see a government bent on denying rights to Israel’s minorities and undermining any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the far-right politics of new government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have drawn much of the world’s attention, a series of proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system has also been raising hopes and alarms. On Wednesday, new Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced an overhaul that would limit the authority of the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court. It would put more politicians on the selection committee that picks judges, restrict the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and government decisions and enact an “override clause” enabling the Knesset to rewrite court decisions with a simple majority.
Levin and his supporters on the right justify these changes as a way to restore balance to a system that he says puts too much control in the hands of (lately) left-leaning judges: “We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard,” he asserted. “That is not democracy.”
Critics of the changes call them a power grab, one that will hand more leverage to the haredi Orthodox parties, remove checks on the settlement movement and limit civil society groups’ ability to litigate on behalf of Israeli minorities.
To help me make sense of the claims on both sides, I turned to Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, where he is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law and co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project, which gathers and analyzes the constitutions of all independent nation-states. He’s also a Jew who has transformed a former synagogue on the South Side of Chicago into a cutting-edge arts space, and says what’s happening with Israel’s new governing coalition “raises my complicated relationship with the country.”
We spoke on Friday. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You have written about law in Israel, which lacks a constitution but relies on a series of “basic laws” to define its fundamental institutions. You’ve written that the Israeli judiciary had become “extremely powerful” — maybe too powerful — in imbuing the basic laws with a constitutional character, but worry that the current reforms will politicize the court in ways that will undermine Israeli democracy.
Tom Ginsburg: The proposed reforms were a campaign promise of certain elements of this coalition who have had longstanding grievances against the Israeli judiciary. The Israeli judiciary over the last decades has indeed become extremely powerful and important in writing or rewriting a constitution for Israel, promoting human rights and serving as a check and balance in a unicameral parliamentary system where the legislature can do anything it wants as a formal matter. A lot of people have had problems with that at the level of theory and practice. So there have been some reforms, and the court has, in my view, cut back on its activism in recent decades and in some sense has been more responsive to the center of the country. But there’s longstanding grievances from the political right, and that’s the context of these proposals.
A lot of the concerns about the new government in Israel are coming from the American Jewish left. But in an American context, the American Jewish left also has a big problem with the United States Supreme Court, because they see it as being too activist on the right. So in some ways isn’t the new Israeli government looking to do what American Jewish liberals dream of doing in this country?
Isn’t that funny? But the context is really different. The basic point is that judicial independence is a really good thing. Judicial accountability is a really good thing. And if you study high courts around the world, as I do, you see that there’s kind of a calibration, a balancing of institutional factors which lead towards more independence or more accountability and sometimes things switch around over time.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Jan. 4, 2023. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)
You mean “accountability” in the sense that courts should be accountable to the public.
Right. The Israeli promoters of these plans are pointing to the United States, in particular, for the proposals for more political involvement in the appointment process. On the other hand, in the United States once you’re appointed politically, you’re serving for life. There’s literally no check on your power. And so maybe some people think we have too much independence. If these proposals go through in Israel, there will be a front-end politicization of the court [in terms of the selection commission], but also back-end checks on the court [with the override clause that would allow a simple majority to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court]. So in some sense, it moves the pendulum very far away from independence and very much towards accountability to the point of possible politicization.
And accountability in that case is too much of a good thing.
Again, you don’t want courts that can just make up rules. They should be responsive to society. On the other hand, you don’t want judges who are so responsive to society that there’s no protection for the basic rights of unpopular minorities.
What makes Israel either unique or different from some of the other countries you study, and certainly the United States? Part of it, I would guess, is the fact that it does not have a constitution. Is that a useful distinction?
They couldn’t agree on a single written constitution at the outset of the country, but they have built one through what you might call a “common law method”: norms and practices over time as well as the system of “basic laws,” which are passed by an absolute majority of the Knesset, where a majority of 61 votes can change any of those. But while they’re not formally entrenched, they have a kind of political status because of that term: basic law.
By the way, the Germans are in the same boat. The German constitution is called the Basic Law. And it was always meant to be a provisional constitution until they got together and reunified.
If you don’t have a written constitution, what’s the source of the legitimacy of judicial power? What is to prevent a Knesset from just passing literally any law, including ones that violate all kinds of rights, or installing a dictator? It has been political norms. And because Israel has relied on political norms, that means that this current conflict is going to have extremely high stakes for Israeli governance for many decades to come.
Can you give me a couple of examples? What are the high stakes in terms of democratic governance?
First of all, let me just say in principle that I don’t oppose reforms to make the judiciary more independent or accountable in any particular country. But then you obviously have to look at the local context. What’s a little worrying about this particular example is that several members of this coalition are themselves about to be subject to judicial proceedings.
Including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Right. And for example, they need to change the rules so that [Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri can sit in the cabinet despite his prior convictions. That indicates to me that maybe this isn’t a good-faith argument about the proper structure of the Israeli, uncodified constitution, but instead a mechanism of expediency.
Any one of these reforms might look okay, and you can find other countries that have done them. The combination, however, renders the judiciary extremely weak. Right now, it’s a multi-stakeholder commission that nominates and appoints judges in Israel, and the new coalition wants to propose that the commission be made up of a majority of politicians. We know that when you change the appointments mechanism to put more politicians on those committees, the more politicized they become.
Think about the United States process of appointing our Supreme Court judges: It’s highly politicized, and obviously the legitimacy of the court has taken a big hit in recent years. In Israel, you’d have politicized appointments under these reforms, but then you also have the ability of the Knesset to override any particular ruling that it wanted. Again, you can find countries which have that. It’s called the “new commonwealth model” of constitutionalism, in which courts don’t have the final say on constitutional matters, and the legislature can overrule them on particular rulings. But I think the combination is very dangerous because you could have a situation where the Knesset — which currently has a role in protecting human rights — can pick out and override specific cases, which really to me goes against the idea of the rule of law.
You mentioned other countries. Are there other countries where these kinds of changes were enacted and we saw how the experiment turned out?
The two most prominent recently are Hungary and Poland, which are not necessarily countries that you want to compare yourself to.
Certainly not if you are Israel.
Right. There’s so much irony here. When the new Polish government came in in 2015, they immediately manipulated the appointment system for the Constitutional Court and appointed their own majority, which then allowed them to pass legislation which probably would have been ruled unconstitutional. They basically set up a system where they were going to replace lower judges and so they were going to grow themselves into a majority of the court. And that’s led to controversy and rulings outside the mainstream that have led to protests, while the European Union is withholding funds and such from Poland because of this manipulation of the court.
In Hungary, Victor Orban was a really radical leader, and when he had a bare majority to change the constitution he wiped out all the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. I don’t think the Israeli government would do that. But still there is this kind of worrying sense that they’re able to manipulate interpretation of law for their own particular political interest.
Another thing I want to raise is the potential for a constitutional crisis now. Suppose they pass these laws and the Israeli Supreme Court says, “Well, wait a minute, that interferes with our common law rules that we are bound by, going back to the British Mandate.” It conflicts with the basic law and they invoke what legal scholars call the “doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” which is basically saying that an amendment goes against the core of our democratic system and violates, for example, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic society. Israel has never done this, but it is a kind of tool that one sees deployed around the world in these crises. And if that happened, then I think you would have a full constitutional crisis on your hands in Israel.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak speaks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony in the Supreme Court marking 50 years of law, Sept. 15, 1998. (Avi Ohayon)
What does a constitutional crisis look like?
Suppose you have sitting justices in Israel who say, “You know, this Knesset law violates the basic law and therefore it’s invalid.” And then, would the Knesset try to impeach those judges? Would they cut the budget of the judiciary? Would they back down?
When you compare Israel’s judicial system to other countries’ over the years, how does it stack up? Is it up there among the very strong systems or is it known for flaws that might have maybe hobbled its effectiveness?
It’s always been seen around the world as a very strong judiciary. Under the leadership of Aharon Barak [president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006] it became extremely activist. And this provoked backlash in Israeli politics. That led to a kind of recalibration of the court where it is still doing its traditional role of defending fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of the political process, but it’s not making up norms left and right, in the way that it used to. This is my perception. But it’s certainly seen as one of the leading courts around the world, its decisions are cited by others, and because of the quality of the judges and the complex issues that Israel faces it’s seen as a strong court and an effective court and to me a balanced court.
But, you know, I’m not in Israel, and ultimately, they’re going to figure out the question how balanced it is or where it’s going to go. I do worry that an unchecked majoritarian system, especially with a pure proportional representation model like Israel, has the potential for the capture of government by some minorities to wield power against other minorities. And that’s a problem for democracies — to some degree, that’s a problem we face in the United States.
How correctable are these reforms? I am thinking of someone who says, “These are democratically elected representatives who now want to change a system. If you want to change the system, elect your own majority.” Is the ship of state like this really hard to turn around once you go in a certain direction?
This is an area in which I think Israel and the United States have a lot of similarities. For several decades now, the judiciary has been a major issue for those on the political right. They thought the Warren Court was too left-leaning and they started the Federalist Society to create a whole cadre of people to staff the courts. They’ve done that and now the federal courts are certainly much more conservative than the country probably. But the left didn’t really have a theory of judicial power in the United States. And I think that’s kind of true in Israel: It’s a big issue for the political right, but the political left, besides just being not very cohesive at the moment, isn’t able to articulate what’s good about having an independent judiciary. It is correctable in theory, but that would require the rule of law to become a politically salient issue, which it generally isn’t in that many countries.
How do you relate to what is happening in Israel as a Jew, and not just a legal scholar?
That’s a great question, because it really raises my complicated relationship with the country. You know, I find it to be a very interesting democracy. I like going to Israel because it’s a society in which there’s a lot of argument, a lot of good court cases and a lot of good legal scholars. On one level, I connect with my colleagues and friends there who seem very demoralized about this current moment. And I honestly worry about whether this society will remain a Jewish and democratic one with the current coalition.
The rule of law is a part of democracy. You need the rule of law in order to have democracy function. And I know others would respond and say, “Oh, you’re just being hysterical.” And, “This isn’t Sweden, it’s the Middle East.” But the ethno-nationalist direction of the country bothers me as a Jew, and I hope that the court remains there to prevent it from deepening further.
—
The post A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The three responses to the Bondi Beach Hanukkah attack that could make Jews safer
After two gunmen opened fire at a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach, killing at least 11 people and wounding dozens more, the world is asking urgent questions: Could this be the first of many such attacks? Who might be behind it? And how can we prevent the next tragedy?
Was Iran involved?
Iran, with its long history of using proxies and terrorism, naturally comes to mind. Israeli intelligence has publicly warned that Tehran remains highly motivated to target Israeli and Jewish interests abroad.
Reports suggest that Israeli agencies have assessed not only that Iran has the intent, but that it also possesses the capability to use its networks — through Hezbollah, Hamas, and other proxy groups — to strike outside the Middle East. Western governments, including Australia, the U.S., and members of the EU, have acknowledged Iranian intelligence activity on their soil.
The motivation is clear: Israel’s military strike damaged Iranian infrastructure and positions in June, followed shortly by U.S. attacks that compounded the damage and were widely celebrated in Israel and by Jewish communities. To Iran’s benighted regime, they were provocations that demanded a response. Certainly some of the investigation into the Bondi Beach attack will look in that direction.
But focusing solely on Iran risks missing a more immediate and pervasive danger: Violence against Jews does not require orchestration by a foreign state. The conditions that make it possible — and increasingly thinkable — are already everywhere.
Terrorism against Jews has gone global
Terrorism is tragically easy to carry out. Only two months ago, two Jews were killed by a Muslim attacker on Yom Kippur who rammed a car into a crowd outside a synagogue in England and attacked people with knives.
And while the UK and Australia severely restrict access to weapons, nowhere in the developed world is mad violence easier to orchestrate than in the United States. Firearms are cheap, accessible, and legal for virtually anyone, and the sheer size of the country makes monitoring and security far more difficult than in smaller, more centralized nations. Lone actors can wreak destruction on a scale that would be unthinkable elsewhere. If one wanted to locate the most vulnerable place for ideologically motivated attacks, the United States sits uncomfortably near the top.
Motivation for such violence has been growing steadily. Antisemitic attacks have increased across the Western world, and the way the Gaza war unfolded has only accelerated the trend. The narrative of “genocide” has become increasingly entrenched, making it harder for Jews to occupy the once-unquestioned moral space: I still defend Israel and should not be attacked for it. That space is collapsing.
“The idea that Jews collectively bear responsibility for Israel’s actions is seeping into public consciousness in ways that make massacres like Bondi Beach more thinkable, if not inevitable.”
Dan Perry
Polls now show that roughly half of Americans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Substantial minorities go further, rationalizing recent attacks against Jews as “understandable” or even “justified.” These numbers do not indicate majority support for violence, but they are significant enough to suggest that moral restraints are weakening.
This shift is particularly pronounced among younger generations, where hostility toward Israel has become a moral baseline. It does not automatically translate into action, but it lowers the social cost of excusing violence. The idea that Jews collectively bear responsibility for Israel’s actions is seeping into public consciousness in ways that make massacres like Bondi Beach more thinkable, if not inevitable.
The situation is compounded by Israel’s current government. Its policies and rhetoric have alienated large swathes of the global community, including non-orthodox Jews in the United States. The government’s posture — contemptuous, dismissive, and occasionally openly sneering — makes the work of diplomats, community leaders, and advocates far more difficult. Israel’s failure to convey a nuanced understanding abroad of the delicacy of its own situation, nor give any inkling of introspection about its conduct in Gaza, feeds perceptions of illegitimacy and exacerbates antisemitism.
So, what can be done?
The 3 ways to make Jewish communities safer
First, Jewish communities must assume that maximal security at every event, and certainly on holidays and around landmarks, is essential not optional. Every public event, school, and institution should be protected at the highest feasible level. Prudence demands it. Governments that claim to protect minorities must fund and sustain this protection, not treat it as an emergency add-on after tragedy strikes.
Second, political leadership matters. World leaders must speak clearly and forcefully against antisemitic violence. Silence or hedging is read as permission. Muslim leaders, in particular, should speak plainly: Condemning attacks on Jews is not an endorsement of Israel, nor a betrayal of Palestinian suffering — it is an assertion of basic moral boundaries. President Donald Trump, despite his many failings, has a unique capacity to apply pressure. If he insisted publicly that major figures in the Muslim world denounce antisemitic violence, he could secure statements and commitments that might otherwise be unattainable. That could save lives.
Finally, Israel itself must confront its role. The current government has become a strategic liability — not just for Israel’s security, but for Jews worldwide. Its policies, tone, and posture have helped create the conditions in which antisemitism flourishes abroad. This in no way justifies attacks on Jews, but we must live in the real world that can be cruel, indifferent, superficial and unfair.
A government that understands the global stakes, communicates openness to the world, respects the diversity of the Jewish diaspora, and approaches foreign and domestic policy with nuance and restraint would do enormous good. It would not eliminate the threat overnight, but it would drastically reduce the conditions that allow such hatred to grow. Replacing the current government with one capable of such diplomacy and moral awareness could, in a sense, be the most effective preventive measure of all.
The Bondi Beach massacre is a devastating warning. It is a tragedy that could have happened anywhere and serves as a grim reminder that antisemitic violence is an urgent threat to Jews everywhere.
The post The three responses to the Bondi Beach Hanukkah attack that could make Jews safer appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
U.S. leaders condemn ‘vile act of antisemitic terror’ after deadly Hanukkah attack in Australia
American politicians responded early Sunday to devastating reports from Sydney, Australia, where at least 11 people were killed during a Hanukkah celebration at the popular Bondi Beach on the first night of Hanukkah. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the terror attack an “act of evil antisemitism” that targeted Australia’s Jewish community.
Some elected officials struck a somber tone, while others drew political conclusions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a brief statement condemning the attack and said that “antisemitism has no place in this world.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the Australian government’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state earlier this year encouraged “the Jew-hatred now stalking your streets.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, tied the attack to the Israel-Hamas war, sending a warning to governments that support the unilateral recognition of an independent Palestinian state before Hamas is disarmed. “When you appease those who kill Jews, you get more killing of Jews,” Graham said in an interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.
Sen. John Fetterman, a pro-Israel Democrat from Pennsylvania, echoed that sentiment on the same program, saying that anti-Israel protests in recent years have “penetrated” into violent attacks on Jews. “Just call it what it is,” Fetterman said. “Antisemitism is a worldwide scourge, and it’s constantly demonstrated to be deadly.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish, posted on X that the attack is a “shocking reminder that antisemitism and hate is not only toxic and far too present and widespread around the world, it is deadly. It must be vigorously condemned, confronted and overcome.”
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani issued a statement, posted on his social media accounts, calling the attack a “vile act of antisemitic terror” and “the latest, most horrifying iteration in a growing pattern of violence targeted at Jewish people across the world.”
Mamdani, an outspoken critic of Israel whose statements on the conflict and refusal to disavow the “globalize the Intifada” slogan have roiled and divided the Jewish community, said the deadly attack should be met with urgent action to counter antisemitism. He also reiterated his pledge to “work every day to keep Jewish New Yorkers safe — on our streets, our subways, at shul, in every moment of every day.” New York City is home to the largest concentration of Jews in the United States.
Outgoing New York City Mayor Eric Adams said the police department will provide additional security at public menorah lightings across the city. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the state police will assist with protection. “New York will always stand against the scourge of antisemitism and confront violence head-on,” Hochul added.
Brad Lander, the outgoing New York City Comptroller who is Jewish, and also running for Congress, also highlighted the heroism of a local man, Ahmed al-Ahmed, who put his own life at risk by running behind one of the gunmen and tackling and disarming him. Lander mourned the killing of a Chabad of Bondi’s Rabbi Eli Schlanger.
“Our menorahs tonight will also be yahrzeit candles — with grief for this grievous loss and rededication to shine brighter than slaughter and hate,” Lander wrote on X.
The post U.S. leaders condemn ‘vile act of antisemitic terror’ after deadly Hanukkah attack in Australia appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Timeline: How attacks on Jews in Australia have been growing since Oct. 7
The mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach on Sunday marked a grim new chapter in a pattern Australian officials have been tracking for more than two years: the steady escalation of antisemitic threats, from harassment and vandalism to arson, attempted attacks on synagogues and, now, mass-casualty violence at a public Jewish gathering.
Police said at least 11 people were killed, including a rabbi, when a gunman opened fire on families celebrating the first night of Hanukkah at the Chabad event, known as “Chanukah by the Sea.” Federal and state leaders swiftly condemned the attack as antisemitic terrorism and pledged a full national security response.
For Australia’s Jewish community, which numbers around 100,000, the shooting shattered any remaining sense that the country’s recent antisemitic incidents — alarming as they were — remained largely isolated and contained. Some of those attacks, including the Dec. 2024 firebombing of a kosher restaurant and a firebombing of a Melbourne synagogue that same month, were linked to potential Iran involvement.
Sunday’s attack followed mounting warnings from law enforcement and Jewish organizations that antisemitism in Australia had entered a more dangerous phase since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 and the war in Gaza ensued.
Below is a timeline of major recent antisemitic incidents in Australia, as authorities and Jewish groups charted an intensifying threat.
July 2025
Australia’s antisemitism envoy reported a dramatic rise in attacks against Jews, citing more than 2,000 cases in the year following Oct. 7 — an increase of more than 300% compared with the previous year.
July 2025
A man set fire to the front door of a synagogue in Melbourne while congregants were inside for Shabbat dinner, as a separate group of protesters stormed an Israeli restaurant nearby. No one was injured in either attack, police said, adding that the synagogue fire was quickly extinguished and that one person was arrested after demonstrators chanting anti-Israel slogans disrupted the restaurant.
Feb. 2025
Two nurses at a Sydney hospital were arrested after they threatened to kill Israeli patients in a video that went viral. It was an episode officials described as emblematic of how antisemitic rhetoric had seeped into workplaces and public institutions.
Feb. 2025
Police in Melbourne arrested a man accused of scrawling antisemitic graffiti in a park and throwing a packet of bacon at a passerby who confronted him.
Feb. 2025
A cluster of incidents in Sydney’s southeast suburbs, home to a large Jewish community, raised alarm among authorities. Antisemitic graffiti was sprayed on cars, homes and on a Jewish elementary school.
Jan. 2025
Police discovered explosives in a camper van in Sydney, saying the device may have been intended for a mass-casualty attack targeting Jews. Police later revealed that the plot was an elaborate hoax masterminded by a crime boss.
Jan. 2025
Two synagogues in Sydney were vandalized on successive days with swastikas and other antisemitic slogans. The attacks also included a nearby home that was defaced with an anti-Jewish slur.
Dec. 2024
The Australian government formed a national antisemitism task force, signaling a shift toward treating antisemitic violence as a coordinated security threat rather than isolated hate crimes.
Dec. 2024
Arsonists firebombed an historic synagogue in Melbourne, causing congregants gathered for morning services to flee. At least one person was injured and the building suffered extensive damage.
In Aug. 2025, federal authorities announced charges in the case and said intelligence agencies were examining evidence of foreign-linked coordination. Officials publicly alleged Iranian involvement, escalating the case into a matter of international security, and expelled from the country Ambassador Ahmad Sadeghi and three other Iranian officials.
October 2024
On Bondi Beach, where the Dec. 2025 shooting took place, arsonists first attacked a brewery which they had incorrectly identified as a kosher caterer. They went back and set fire to the caterer’s building a few days later. Authorities eventually revealed they thought the attacks were done at the behest of Iran. That same month, antisemitic graffiti appeared on a Jewish bakery in Sydney.
May 2024
Vandals sprayed antisemitic graffiti on a Jewish school in Melbourne. School officials increased security amid concerns about copycat attacks.
Feb. 2024
Pro-Palestinian activists made public the personal details of hundreds of Jewish academics, artists and professionals who had participated in a private WhatsApp group. The leak triggered a wave of harassment, prompting at least one family to go into hiding. The episode drew condemnation from federal leaders and warnings from police that online targeting could translate into real-world violence.
Dec. 2023
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry reported a sharp spike in antisemitic incidents in the weeks following Oct. 7, including threats, harassment, vandalism and intimidation. The increase prompted expanded security at synagogues, schools and community centers across major cities.
Nov. 2023
A Melbourne synagogue was ordered to evacuate during Friday night Shabbat services as police responded to nearby pro-Palestinian demonstrations. About 150 congregants had gathered at Central Shul in Caulfield when authorities advised them to leave as a precaution.
Oct. 2023
Two days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the Sydney Opera House was lit up in the colors of the Israeli flag and was expected to draw Jews looking for a public space to mourn. Instead, it drew more than 1,000 pro-Palestinian protesters, some of whom spewed antisemitic slogans and rhetoric.
The post Timeline: How attacks on Jews in Australia have been growing since Oct. 7 appeared first on The Forward.