Uncategorized
Judy Heumann, Jewish disability advocate who spurred a movement, dies at 75
(JTA) — In Judith Heumann’s 2020 memoir, the lifelong advocate for people with disabilities describes feeling shocked upon being invited to read from the Torah at her synagogue in Berkeley, California. Not only were women permitted to carry out the sacred task, unlike in the Orthodox synagogue of her Brooklyn childhood, but the bimah, or prayer platform, had been made accessible just for her.
“Oh my God, I thought, I’ve never been asked to do an aliyah,” Heumann wrote, using the Hebrew word for the ritual. “I learned how to do it.”
The moment was just one of many when Heumann, who died Saturday at 75, charted ground that had previously been off-limits to wheelchair users like her. Since contracting polio as a toddler, Heumann broke down barriers for disabled children and educators in New York City schools, protested until federal legislation protecting people with disabilities was passed and advised multiple presidential administrations on disability issues.
A cause of death was not immediately given for Heumann, whose website announced her death on Saturday in Washington, D.C. Heumann had lived there for 30 years, since being tapped by the Clinton administration to serve as assistant secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.
Heumann was born in 1947 to two parents who had separately fled Nazi Germany as children in the 1930s; all of her grandparents and countless other family members were murdered in the Holocaust.
She said she believed it was her parents’ experience that led them to reject doctors’ advise to have their daughter institutionalized after she contracted polio and lost the use of her legs. “They came from a country where families got separated, some children sent away, others taken from their families by the authorities and never returned — all part of a campaign of systematic dehumanization and murder,” she wrote in her memoir, “Being Heumann.” “Their daughter, disabled or not, wasn’t going anywhere.”
Instead, her parents and in particular her mother, Ilse, set about to advocate for her. When the city school system said Judith could not attend her neighborhood school, Ilse got a rabbi to agree that she could attend his yeshiva if her daughter learned Hebrew. Judith did, but the rabbi did not keep his word. Instead, Ilse lined up an array of activities for Judith, including thrice-weekly Hebrew school classes accessible only if her father carried her in her chair up a flight of stairs, until the city opened a program for children with disabilities.
Judy Heumann attends the 2022 Women’s Entrepreneurship Day Organization Summit at United Nations in New York City, May 20, 2022. (Chance Yeh/Getty Images)
There, Heumann wrote, she first encountered “disability culture” — what she described as “a culture that has learned to value the humanity in all people, without dismissing anyone for looking, thinking, believing or acting differently.” She would experience and then help craft this culture during a decade at summer camp, in a movement captured in the 2020 documentary “Crip Camp,” and then throughout a lifetime of advocacy that earned her the moniker “mother of the disability rights movement.”
One notable win came in 1970, after Heumann graduated from college with a degree in speech therapy. Told that she could not teach in New York City schools because she could not help children leave in case of fire, Heumann sued. She was represented in part by an attorney who would argue Roe v. Wade in front of the Supreme Court, and the case came before Judge Constance Baker Motley, the only woman on the NAACP legal team that argued Brown v. Board of Education. The city quickly settled and Heumann ultimately got a job at her old elementary school.
The public fight propelled Heumann into the leadership of an inchoate disability rights movement. Two years later, she participated in New York City protests in favor of federal anti-discrimination laws that President Richard Nixon ultimately signed. In 1977, she was one of dozens of disability advocates to occupy a federal building in San Francisco in a demonstration calling for enforcement mechanisms. Their advocacy led to Section 504, a federal statute that requires entities receiving government funds to show that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability.
The episode was dramatized on Comedy Central’s “Drunk History.” Heumann was played by Ali Stroker, a Jewish actress who was the first wheelchair user to perform on Broadway. Heumann was also recognized as Time Magazine’s 1977 Woman of the Year in a 2020 retrospective.
Heumann was a cofounder of the Center for Independent Living in Berkeley before returning to the East Coast and the government advisory roles. Through it all, Heumann remained involved with the Jewish communities where she lived, including by having a bat mitzvah ceremony as an adult. In Washington, she was a member of Adas Israel Congregation.
In 2016, she cited tikkun olam, the ancient rabbinical imperative to repair the world, during a 2016 White House event during Jewish Disability Awareness and Inclusion Month. “The Jewish community has an obligation, I believe, to be leaders,” said Heumann, then special advisor for international disability rights in the State Department.
She also traveled as an adult to her father’s hometown in Germany, Hoffenheim, where she was taken to the site of the synagogue that the Nazis destroyed but noted that no one there spoke openly about what had happened to the local Jews.
In “Being Heumann,” she connected the experience to her own efforts to bring people with disabilities into the mainstream. “What a pervasive influence silence and avoidance have had on my life,” she wrote. “Why wasn’t I in school? Silence. Why aren’t we allowed on buses? Silence. Why can’t disabled people teach? Silence. Where are all the Jews going? Piercing silence.
“I refuse to give in to the pressure of the silence,” she concluded.
Heumann’s allies in the Jewish disability advocacy community mourned her death.
“So sad to learn of Judy Heumann’s passing,” tweeted Jay Ruderman, whose family foundation has been a leader in supporting Jewish disability inclusion. “She was one of the preeminent disability rights leaders in our country’s history and her accomplishments made our world a better place. I’ll miss you Judy and may your memory be a blessing.”
—
The post Judy Heumann, Jewish disability advocate who spurred a movement, dies at 75 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Demolishing Gaza’: How the New York Times Rewrites the Story on Instagram
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Since Hamas’ brutal takeover of the Gaza Strip, the terrorist organization has made it part of its modus operandi to embed itself in any civilian infrastructure.
In the aftermath of the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel has taken considerable steps to remove existing terrorist infrastructure in areas that fall under IDF control, all within the realms of the agreed terms.
Despite this, The New York Times would like to have its audience believe that Israel is systematically destroying the Gaza Strip, even after the signing of a ceasefire.
In “Israel Is Still Demolishing Gaza, Building by Building,” the Times highlights satellite imagery showing that thousands of structures have been demolished since the October 2025 ceasefire, presenting this as ongoing destruction despite the truce. The framing casts Israel as the all-encompassing villain, while Hamas is effectively granted a free pass.
Perhaps worse, when the New York Times transferred the article to its Instagram feed of nearly 20 million followers, the misleading narrative was blasted with even larger gaps in the story.
The Instagram version omits even the limited factual caveats included in the full article, leaving audiences with a one-sided story that excludes Hamas’ role, its terrorist infrastructure, and the realities driving Israeli operations. What remains is not comprehensive reporting, but a carefully curated narrative designed for maximum emotional impact and minimal accountability.
While the Times portrays the ceasefire as “respite” solely for Palestinian civilians after a “punishing” two-year war, nowhere do the journalists acknowledge that ceasefires are intended to apply to both sides.
More importantly, it was Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel — which was accompanied by rockets and the slaughter of innocent civilians — that began this war. In presenting the war as one against Gazan civilians rather than a campaign against a terrorist organization embedded within civilian areas, the New York Times empties the ceasefire of its reciprocal meaning.
Following Israel’s offensive in Gaza, it became increasingly clear the extent to which Hamas has embedded itself and its military infrastructure within civilian locations.
In fact, the very end of the article quotes a Gazan that blames Hamas for having “militarized civilian spaces.” Naturally, a quote blaming Hamas was omitted from the Instagram carousel and hid until the bottom of the article, ensuring the fewest eyes so as not to sway too far from the narrative of absolving Hamas of wrongdoing.
The New York Times is also acutely aware of the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, having visited tunnels on a tour with the IDF during the war.
Still, when the IDF showed the Times classified maps displaying Hamas’ tunnel system — particularly in Shejaiya, within the Israeli-controlled area beyond the yellow line — the newspaper claimed it could not “independently verify” their accuracy. The context of Hamas’ vast tunnel network is missing from the Instagram post entirely.
What Instagram users are left with are two satellite images taken in two different locations in the Gaza Strip, both of which show IDF-controlled areas beyond the yellow line. While the photos are described ever so slightly more in depth in the article, the Instagram post hopes to use them as the concluding evidence that Israel is acting against the ceasefire to continue its ruthless destruction of civilian infrastructure. However, because they are beyond the yellow line, not only are there no civilians there, but Israel is within its full right under the ceasefire to remove any existing terrorist infrastructure.
The New York Times‘ Instagram post presents itself as a case study in media literacy — or, more accurately, its absence. Designed for audiences with short attention spans who are unlikely to click through to the full article, the post strips away essential context, leaving users without any meaningful understanding of why or how the IDF has continued military action against Hamas in the wake of the October 2025 ceasefire.
While the article itself omits critical facts, the Instagram post goes even further. By removing what little context remains, it actively misleads its audience, inviting millions of followers to fill in the gaps with assumptions rather than facts. This is not journalism adapted for social media. It is narrative curation that sacrifices accuracy for maximum impact.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Fatah Spokesman: Gaza Was ‘Paradise’ Before Oct. 7, and Massacre Wasn’t a Problem — Only Its Scale
Rockets are launched by Palestinian into Israel, amid Israeli-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, August 7, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem
While the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas may argue among themselves over tactics, timing, and optics, they are united on the core issue — the legitimacy of terror.
In a single radio interview, the Fatah spokesman in the Gaza Strip — representing the ruling party of the PA, which is now positioning itself as a future governing authority in Gaza — revealed three truths that Palestinian leaders usually avoid stating so openly: that Gaza was not an unlivable hell before October 7, that the mass murder of Israelis is not rejected in principle, and that the internal Palestinian debate is about how much terror is useful, not whether terror is acceptable at all.
Fatah Spokesman in the Gaza Strip Mundhir Al-Hayek: ” … The Gaza Strip before Oct. 7 was a paradise. The situation was very good.
But Hamas exploited this and took over all the economic areas and collected taxes, and unfortunately, the result was moving towards the uncalculated October 7. We needed 10% of Oct. 7 to convey a message to the world that the Palestinian people is persecuted and oppressed, and it needs self-determination. But the political leadership [Hamas] failed.” [emphasis added]
[Radio Mawtini (Fatah radio station), Facebook page, Jan. 6, 2026]
Al-Hayek’s admission that “the Gaza Strip before October 7 was a paradise” and that “the situation was very good” directly contradicts two years of Palestinian claims that October 7 was launched in response to unbearable humanitarian conditions or Israeli “siege.”
According to a senior Fatah official speaking from Gaza itself, life there was not only tolerable, but “very good” until Hamas chose war.
Equally revealing is what Al-Hayek did not condemn.
“I’m not talking about the operation itself,” he emphasized, meaning the atrocities of October 7, but only about what followed. The massacre itself is not rejected. It is treated as a given.
As Palestinian Media Watch has documented consistently, the Palestinian Authority does not morally condemn terror overall, nor October 7 in particular.
Instead, it criticizes October 7 for being politically or tactically mishandled. For Al-Hayek, the failure was not the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, the kidnappings, or the mass atrocities, but that Hamas did not “rescue our people” afterward and failed to manage the consequences of the violence it initiated.
Perhaps the most instructive statement came when Al-Hayek argued that the massacre itself was excessive, not unjustified: “We needed 10% of October 7 to convey a message to the world.”
So, what does “10% of October 7” mean? Does it mean kidnapping 25 people instead of 251? Does it mean murdering 120 people instead of over 1,200? Does it mean raping fewer women or burning fewer families alive?
The answer exposes the PA/Fatah’s true ideology, which does not see terror as a moral question but a quantitative one. Indeed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described October 7 as an attempt to achieve “important goals,” while his senior advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash called it “a legitimate thing.”
Al-Hayek’s remarks underscore the PA/Fatah view that terror is acceptable and is constrained only by political utility and cost.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Iran Summons Italian Ambassador Over Push for EU Clampdown on Revolutionary Guards, State Media Says
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The Iranian foreign ministry summoned Italy’s ambassador over efforts by Rome to place Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the European Union’s terrorist register, state media reported on Tuesday.
Iran‘s foreign ministry warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the Revolutionary Guards and called upon the Italian foreign minister to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran,” the media report said
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Monday that Italy will ask European Union partners this week to label the IRGC as a terrorist group.
Until now, Rome had been among the governments resisting efforts to brand the IRGC as a terrorist group, but Tajani said a bloody Iranian crackdown on street protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X, adding he would raise the issue on Thursday at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
“I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
Being branded a terrorist group would trigger a set of legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would significantly constrain the IRGC’s ability to operate in Europe.
Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC holds great sway in the country, controlling swathes of the economy and armed forces, and is also in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
While some EU member states have previously pushed for the IRGC to be listed, others have been more cautious, fearing that it could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, harming any chance of reviving nuclear talks and jeopardizing any hope of getting EU nationals released from Iranian jails.
However, Iran’s violent crackdown on protests has revived the debate and added momentum to discussions about adding the IRGC, which is already included in the bloc’s human rights sanctions regime, to the EU terrorist list.
Italian, French, and Spanish diplomats raised qualms during a meeting in Brussels earlier this month about adding the IRGC to the list, EU diplomats told Reuters at the time.
If France continues to object, then the move to sanction the IRGC will fail, diplomats have said.