Uncategorized
A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Major American Jewish organizations that hoped to send a unified message about the turmoil in Israel yesterday instead found themselves tussling, partly in the public eye, about what exactly they wanted to say.
Should they praise the massive anti-government protests that have taken shape in recent months? Should they criticize Israel’s sitting government? What, if anything, should they endorse as a next step in the ongoing crisis?
Five large Jewish organizations — all known for their vocal pro-Israel advocacy — began Monday afternoon trying to answer those questions in a unified voice that sent a positive message: praise for a decision to pause the government’s divisive judicial overhaul.
Instead, in a somewhat messy process that unfolded over the course of the afternoon, they ended up sending out a number of different statements that contrasted in subtle yet telling ways. The scramble to publish a statement reflecting consensus — and the resulting impression that consensus was lacking — was a reflection of how Israel’s politics have created a rift in the U.S. Jewish establishment.
For decades, large American Jewish groups have publicly supported Israel’s foreign policy, and mostly stayed quiet on its domestic conflicts. Now, a domestic policy issue threatening to tear Israel apart has compelled at least some of them to do two unusual things: opine on Israel’s internal affairs, and publicly chide the government that, in their view, is responsible for the crisis.
“For a long time any criticism of Israel, even criticism of very difficult policies, was thought to be disloyal, and couldn’t be spoken out of love,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which was not a signatory to the statement but is a constituent of the group that organized it. “I think we now understand that there’s plenty of legitimate criticism and activism that comes from that very place.”
The five groups that began composing the statement together were the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. All have historically been seen as centrist, pro-Israel and representative of the American Jewish establishment, speaking for American Jews in international forums and in meetings with elected officials. All have annual budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Any vocal criticism from those groups has largely been limited to Israel’s treatment of non-Orthodox Jews. Because most American Jews are themselves not Orthodox, American Jewish groups have felt more comfortable advocating for policies that, they believe, will allow more of their constituents to feel welcome in the Jewish state.
But events this year have prompted the groups to speak out on another Israeli domestic issue: the judicial overhaul being pushed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to sap the Israeli Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. The court has, in the past, defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel such as women, the non-Orthodox, Arabs and the LGBTQ community.
“The recognition that what happens in Israel, the policies of the Israeli government and a broader range of issues in this particular case — on judicial reform, the perception of Israel as a vibrant democracy for all of its citizens — that perception has a significant impact on American Jewish life and American Jewish engagement,” said Gil Preuss, CEO of Washington, D.C.’s Jewish federation.
Most of the five groups had previously endorsed calls for compromise on the judicial reform proposal. The federations had also come out against one of its key elements. So when Netanyahu announced on Monday — in the face of widespread protests and dissent from allies — that he would pause the legislative push to allow time for dialogue, they all hoped to express their support.
What to write after that sentiment, however, proved contentious. A version of the statement put out by the American Jewish Committee included sharp criticism of Israeli politicians that was not in the other statements.
The Jewish Federations of North America sent out an addendum to the statement that was sympathetic to anti-Netanyahu protesters.
And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ultimately opted out of the statement altogether — but not before a version had already been released in its name.
None of the five groups responded to requests for comment on the process behind the statement, but insiders said the differences between the statements, and AIPAC’s opting out, had little to do with policy differences. Instead, they blamed the confusion on missteps in the rush to get the statement out in the minutes after Netanyahu’s remarks, which aired in Israel at 8 p.m. and in the early afternoon on the East Coast, where all of the groups are based.
The statement that ultimately appeared, after declaring that the groups “welcome the Israeli government’s suspension” of the reforms, said that the raucous debate and protests over the legislation were “painful to watch” but also “a textbook case of democracy in action.”
A key line included rare advice to Israel from the establishment Jewish groups: “As a next step, we encourage all Knesset factions, coalition and opposition alike, to use this time to build a consensus that includes the broad support of Israeli civil society.”
The Conference of Presidents was the first to release the statement, just past 2 p.m., less than an hour after Netanyahu had completed his remarks. It listed its co-endorsers as the AJC, the ADL and JFNA.
Five minutes later, the AJC put out a version of the same statement that added AIPAC to the endorsers. It included the same sentence offering advice, plus another two that added criticism and a caution: “Israel’s political leaders must insist on a more respectful tone and debate. A hallmark of democracy is public consensus and mutual consideration.”
Statements from JFNA and ADL, which went out subsequently, hewed to the Conference of Presidents version. An AIPAC official told JTA that the group did not want to sign onto the statement because it had wanted more time to add edits.
Just before 3 p.m., more than 40 minutes after its initial email, AJC sent out an email advising recipients that its inclusion of AIPAC was an error.
But its new statement still included the line criticizing politicians, which the other groups had eschewed. In the end, AJC removed that line, too: It is absent from the version of the statement posted on the group’s website.
AIPAC ultimately settled on posting a tweet that stuck to praising Israel for its democratic process, without further comment.
“For many weeks, Israelis have engaged in a vigorous debate reflective of the Jewish state’s robust democracy,” it said. “Israel’s diverse citizenship is showcasing its passionate engagement in the democratic process to determine the policies that will guide their country.”
JFNA, in an explanatory email to its constituents attached to the joint statement, was more pointed in its criticism of Netanyahu. On Sunday night, the prime minister had summarily fired his defense minister, Yoav Galant, for publicly advocating a pause on the legislation. That decision sparked protests across Israel, which in turn prompted Netanyahu to announce exactly the same pause and compromise that Gallant had proposed.
“The response across Israeli society was immediate and angry,” said the email signed by Julie Platt, the chairwoman of JFNA, and Eric Fingerhut, its CEO. “Spontaneous protests gathered in the streets and commentators expressed shock at a decision to fire a Defense Minister for having expressed concern about the risks to the country’s military position … Netanyahu’s own lawyer in his corruption trial announced that he could no longer represent him.”
The groups weren’t alone in releasing pained statements about Israel’s volatility — which has also stirred anguish among groups that have previously defended the Israeli right.
This week, Rabbi Moshe Hauer of the Orthodox Union, who met earlier this month with far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, praised Israel’s leaders for “the recognition of the value of taking time, engaging with each other with honesty and humility, and proceeding to build consensus.” (Smotrich, for his part, supports the overhaul and opposed pausing the legislation.)
“Our Sages taught, ‘Peace is great; discord is despised’,” Hauer, the group’s executive director, said in an emailed statement to JTA. “We are deeply shaken by the upheaval and discord that has gripped our beloved State of Israel. In recent weeks, the Jewish tradition and the democratic value of vigorous debate have been replaced by something very dangerous and different.”
The two largest non-Orthodox movements were open about their opposition to the overhaul. “We believe ardently that the proposed judicial reform is fraught with danger and goes against the principles of democracy,” the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly said in a statement Tuesday.
A statement from the leadership of the Reform movement, including Jacobs, castigated Netanyahu for agreeing to create a national guard under the authority of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, and for being “willing to risk the safety and security of Israel’s citizens to keep himself and his coalition in power.”
That strong language, Jacobs suggested, reflects the wishes of those who fund establishment Jewish groups and congregations. He said those groups were hearing from donors whose frustration with the Netanyahu government is reaching a boiling point.
“I hear of donors telling organizations, ‘I have to tell you, I don’t hear your voice, speaking out in favor of Israel’s democracy at this very vulnerable moment. So I’ll tell you what, why don’t you hang on to my phone number when you find your voice?’”
—
The post A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
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.