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
Iran Posts AI Video Showing Missile Striking Statue of Liberty
An Israeli air defense system intercepts a ballistic missile barrage launched from Iran to central Israel during the missile attack, February 27, 2026. Photo: Eli Basri / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
Iran on Tuesday released an AI-generated video depicting a missile striking the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, a global symbol of American freedom and democracy, in one of the regime’s latest propaganda efforts to influence public perception abroad.
Shared by Iranian state broadcaster IRIB as well as a Telegram channel affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the minute-long video ends with the slogan “One vengeance for all.”
IRGC Official Telegram Channel Releases AI Video Depicting Iranian Ballistic Missile Strike on United States, Hitting New York City and Toppling Statue of Liberty Shown as Idol of Baal Holding Babylonian Talmud pic.twitter.com/JhgNgHW2Zz
— MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) March 25, 2026
The video was also circulated by Russian state outlet RT, in what appears to be a stark and symbolic threat against the United States.
‘ONE VENGEANCE FOR ALL’ — Iran ‘bombs’ the Statue of Liberty WITH THE HEAD OF BAAL pic.twitter.com/6tPH15fqkZ
— RT (@RT_com) March 25, 2026
Since the start of the US-Israel war with Iran, which began on Feb. 28, Iranian officials have ramped up their propaganda and disinformation efforts, trying to portray Washington and Jerusalem as responsible for decades of regional conflict while seeking to influence left-leaning Americans to mobilize domestic opposition to the war.
This latest widely circulated video presents a striking sequence portraying the United States as the world’s enemy, drawing on imagery from the dispossession of Native Americans and the atomic bombings of Japan to the Vietnam War and more recent Middle Eastern conflicts to craft a sweeping narrative of American aggression.
The clip also features footage alluding to a child on Jeffrey Epstein’s private island — a recurring theme in Iran’s messaging used to suggest that US President Donald Trump launched the current war to distract the public from the Epstein scandal, in which the late financier was convicted of running a sex-trafficking ring involving underage girls and, allegedly, various influential figures.
Later in the video, AI-generated figures of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the late Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani are shown gazing skyward. Khamenei was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Feb. 28, and Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in 2020.
The final sequence of the video depicts a missile in Iranian colors striking the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, whose head has been replaced with that of Baal, a false god from the Bible, while the statue holds the Talmud, a key collection of Jewish religious teachings and laws.
This video is the latest example of AI-generated propaganda released since the start of the war with Iran.
Last week, Chinese state television CCTV released a separate AI-generated clip illustrating Beijing’s perspective on the Strait of Hormuz crisis, featuring Persian cats in martial arts combat and an eagle-headed human representing the United States.
Experts note that Russian dissemination of Tehran’s video reflects a broader coordinated effort to use visual propaganda to challenge US foreign policy and influence global perceptions amid rising regional tensions.
The latest video came as the US and Iran began engaging in diplomacy over a possible resolution to the war, although Tehran has reportedly responded negatively to Washington’s proposal.
Uncategorized
US Sen. Bill Cassidy Demands Answers From Mamdani on Taxpayer-Funded Anti-Israel Activity
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the New York City Office of Emergency Management, as a major winter storm spreads across a large swath of the United States, in Brooklyn, New York City, US, Jan. 25, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Bing Guan
A senior Republican lawmaker in the US Congress is sounding the alarm over actions by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration, arguing that the use of public resources to advance what he describes as a politically charged, anti-Israel agenda risks alienating Jewish residents and may conflict with federal funding requirements.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, on Monday expanded an investigation into whether New York City agencies have improperly incorporated geopolitical advocacy into taxpayer-funded programs. The move reflects growing scrutiny in Washington over how local governments engage with issues related to Israel amid heightened tensions and record levels of antisemitic hate crimes following the conflict in Gaza.
In a new letter to Mamdani, Cassidy said he is concerned that certain city initiatives, particularly within public health programming, may be framing Israel in a way that undermines inclusivity and raises potential civil rights concerns. He pointed to reports of internal discussions and working groups within the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that examine global conflicts, including Israel’s war against Hamas, through an “oppression” or “equity” lens.
“These taxpayer dollars are meant to improve New Yorkers’ health, not push a far-left agenda that discriminates against Jewish families,” Cassidy said in a statement announcing the letter and expanded probe. “At a time of rising antisemitism, Mamdani is failing Jewish New Yorkers.”
The senator also warned that merging political advocacy with federally supported programs could jeopardize compliance with federal guidelines, potentially putting funding streams at risk. His office has requested documentation and clarification from city officials regarding the scope and purpose of the “Global Oppression and Public Health Working Group” and to turn over all documents disseminated at the meeting sessions.
In February, a cohort of staffers within the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reportedly formed the group and declared its purpose is to explore how supposed “global oppression” operates and affects health equity and the wellbeing of certain communities in the city. In its initial meeting, which lasted one hour, a presenter explicitly cited the conflict in Gaza as an “ongoing genocide” and framed it along with other forms of alleged oppression as relevant to health outcomes, the New York Post reported.
“We really developed in response to the ongoing genocide in Palestine,” one presenter said, according to video acquired by the Post. “And the working group aims to address the growing interests among the health department staff to learn about current and ongoing global oppression in its many forms and how it influences the advancement of health equity.”
Critics, including City Council leaders, say the working group crossed a line by focusing on international politics and critiques of a foreign government instead of core public health responsibilities like managing diseases, especially on city time with taxpayer-funded time and resources.
“The department’s focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the creation of an internal ‘working group’ organized around a particular ethnic or national group underscores the need to ensure that workplace initiatives are administered in a manner that does not leave other employees — in this case, Jewish employees — feeling excluded or marginalized,” Cassidy wrote in his letter.
“Additionally, the question remains as to whether the department will hold similar discussions through either this or separate working groups for other ethnic or national groups affected by global geopolitical conflicts, or whether the department’s sole interest is in denouncing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the exclusion of all others,” the senator added. “These circumstances warrant review of whether the agency’s internal activities are being structured in a manner consistent with federal nondiscrimination requirements.”
Cassidy initially announced a probe into the matter in early February but expanded his requests for documentation in this week’s letter. He also noted recent statements by the city’s new health commissioner, Dr. Alister Martin, who said in an interview that the department is “not gonna stop doing that work on equity,” even if the federal government “comes and messes with our money.”
“Statements made by Dr. Martin suggesting that the agency will continue advancing certain equity initiatives despite federal policy changes, warrant careful review of the department’s adherence to federal requirements governing programs supported by federal funds,” Cassidy wrote.
His investigation comes amid ongoing concern over Mamdani’s approach to the Jewish community and antisemitism in New York City,
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities who has been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
Leading members of the Jewish community in New York have expressed alarm about Mamdani’s election, fearing what may come in a city already experiencing a surge in antisemitic hate crimes.
Uncategorized
Mamdani voices concerns about synagogue buffer zone bill poised to pass NYC Council
The New York City Council is poised to pass legislation aimed at curbing disruptive protests outside synagogues, as officials weigh Jewish security concerns against free speech protections for pro-Palestinian and progressive activists. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has not taken an official position on the legislation.
The 51-member legislative body is set to vote Thursday on two bills directing the NYPD to develop a plan for protest buffer zones around houses of worship and educational centers. It is part of Council Speaker Julie Menin’s five-point plan to combat antisemitism, as anti-Jewish incidents continue to make up a majority of reported hate crimes in New York City. In recent months, at least two protests outside synagogues featured antisemitic slogans and chants, heightening tensions and drawing condemnation. Some see Menin as a check on the mayor and a potential guardrail against his actions.
The package of bills includes $1.25 million in funding to the Museum of Jewish Heritage for Holocaust education and the creation of a hotline to report antisemitic incidents.
Mamdani allies’ opposition
The buffer zone proposal is facing pushback from allies of Mamdani, a strident Israel critic who faces scrutiny from mainstream Jewish organizations over his response to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests. The Democratic Socialists of America and some progressive Jewish groups, as well as free speech advocates, claim the legislation unfairly targets pro-Palestinian protests and said it gives authorities too much discretion in how the rules are enforced.
Mamdani said in January that he ordered his law department and police leadership to review the proposal’s legality. Mamdani told the Forward he would veto it if he determines it’s illegal.
City Hall has not released the findings of the internal review. A Mamdani spokesperson didn’t say whether the mayor would sign the bills if they pass. But he might not need to. The bill has 35 co-sponsors, giving it the veto-proof, two-thirds majority needed to pass the legislation into law without the mayor’s signature.
Mamdani “is keenly aware of the serious concerns regarding these bills’ limiting of New Yorkers’ constitutional rights, and he will keep these concerns in mind for any bills that land on his desk,” Dora Pekec, a City Hall spokesperson, said in a statement provided to the Forward. “He wants to ensure both the right to prayer and the right to protest are protected here in New York City.”
The bills do not explicitly bar protests or codify a specific distance requirement. Its initial proposal to establish buffer zones of up to 100 feet outside synagogues and other houses of worship was omitted following reservations expressed by Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, who, like Menin, is Jewish, and cautioned that a one-size-fits-all rule might not withstand legal challenge and could prove unworkable across neighborhoods with vastly different street layouts. The Council agreed to revise the language of the bill, placing implementation authority squarely with the police department.
At the state level, Kathy Hochul has proposed similar legislation that would create a 25-foot buffer zone around houses of worship statewide. The measure is being negotiated as part of budget talks ahead of an April 1 deadline. A similar effort is also under consideration in California.
The post Mamdani voices concerns about synagogue buffer zone bill poised to pass NYC Council appeared first on The Forward.