Uncategorized
Diaspora alarm over Israel: Your guide to what the critics are saying
(JTA) — I started reporting on North American Jews and Israel in the last century, and for years covered the debate over whether Jews in the Diaspora had a right to criticize the Israeli government in public. The debate sort of petered out in the early-1990s, when Israel itself began talking about a Palestinian state, and when right-wing groups then decided criticizing Israel was a mitzvah.
Nevertheless, while left-wing groups like J Street and T’ruah have long been comfortable criticizing the Israeli government or defending Palestinian rights, many in the centrist “mainstream” — pulpit clergy, leaders of federations and Hillels, average Jews nervous about spoiling a family get-together — have preferred to keep their concerns to themselves. Partly this is tactical: Few rabbis want to alienate any of their members over so divisive a topic, and in the face of an aggressive left, organizational leaders did not want to give fuel to Israel’s ideological enemies. (The glaring exception has been about Israeli policy toward non-Orthodox Judaism, which is seen as very much the Disapora’s business.)
In recent weeks, there has been an emerging literature of what I have come to think of as “reluctant dissent.” What these essays and sermons have in common, despite the different political persuasions of the authors, is a deep concern over Israel’s “democratic character.” They cite judicial reforms that would weaken checks and balances at the top, expansion of Jewish settlements that would make it impossible to separate from the Palestinians, and the Orthodox parties that want to strengthen their hold on religious affairs. As Abe Foxman, who as former director of the Anti-Defamation League rarely criticized Israel, told an interviewer, “If Israel ceases to be an open democracy, I won’t be able to support it.”
I read through the various ways Jewish leaders and writers here and in Israel are not just justifying Diaspora Jews who are protesting what is happening in Israel, but providing public permission for others to do the same. Here is what a few of them are saying (with a word from a defender of the government):
‘I didn’t sleep much last night’
Yehuda Kurtzer: Facebook, Feb. 8
Kurtzer is the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, the New York-based branch of the Israeli think tank that promotes a diverse, engaged relationship with Israel. In a recent blog post, he neatly describes the dilemma of Diaspora Zionists who aren’t sure what to do with their deep concerns about the direction of the Israel government, especially the concentration of power in a far-right legislative branch.
Centrist American Jews who care about Israel are caught between “those to our right who would see any expression of even uncertainty about Israel’s democratic character as disloyalty, [and] those on the other side who think that a conversation about Israeli democracy is already past its prime,” he writes. He is also concerned about the “widespread disengagement that we can expect among American Jews, what I fear will become the absent majority — those who decide that however the current crisis is resolved, all of this is just ‘not for them.’”
Kurtzer likens Israel to a palace, and Diaspora Jews as “passersby” who live beyond its walls. Nonetheless, he feels responsible for what happens there. “The palace is burning and the best we can do is to tell you,” he writes. “It is also how we will show you we love you, and how much we cherish the palace.”
An open letter to Israel’s friends in North America
Matti Friedman, Yossi Klein Halevi and Daniel Gordis: Times of Israel, Feb. 7
Three high-profile writers who moved to Israel from North America and who often defend Israel against its critics in the United States — Gordis, for one, has written a book arguing that American Jewish liberalism is incompatible with Israel’s “ethnic democracy” — now urge Diaspora Jews to speak out against the current Israeli government. They don’t mention the territories or religious pluralism. Instead, their trigger is the proposed effort to reform the Supreme Court, which they say will “eviscerate the independence of our judiciary and remake the country’s democratic identity.” Such a move will “threaten Israeli-American relations, and it will do grave damage to our relations with you, our sisters and brothers in the Diaspora,” concluding, “We need your voice to help us preserve Israel as a state both Jewish and democratic.”
All Israel Is Responsible for Each Other
Rabbi Angela Buchdahl: Sermon, Jan. 27
Buchdahl, the senior rabbi of New York City’s Reform Central Synagogue, isn’t looking to Israeli writers for permission to weigh in on Israel’s political scene. In a sermon that takes its name from a rabbinic statement of Jewish interdependence, she asserts without question that Jews everywhere have a stake in the future of Israel and have a right to speak up for “civil society and democracy and religious pluralism and human rights” there. She focuses on the religious parties who are convinced that “Reform Jews are ruining Israel,” as you might expect, but ends the sermon with a call to recognize the rights of all Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, “and also those living under Israel’s military control.” Of those Palestinians, she says, “We can’t feel comfortable sitting in the light of sovereignty next to a community living in darkness and expect to have peace.”
And like Kurtzer, she worries that concerned American Jews will simply turn away from Israel in despair or embarrassment, and urges congregants to support the Israeli and American organizations that share their pluralistic vision for Israel.
On That Distant Day
Hillel Halkin: Jewish Review of Books, Winter 2023
In his 1977 book “Letters to an American Jewish Friend: A Zionist Polemic,” the translator and author Hillel Halkin made a distinction similar to Kurtzer’s image of Israel as a palace and the Diaspora as passersby: Jews who don’t emigrate to Israel are dooming themselves to irrelevance, while immigrants like him are living on the stage where the Jewish future would play out. His mournful essay doesn’t address the Diaspora, per se, although it creates a permission structure for Zionists abroad to criticize the government. Halkin sees the new government as a coalition of two types of religious zealots: the haredi Orthodox who want to consolidate their control of religious life (and funding) in Israel, and a “knit-skullcap electorate [that] is hypernationalist and Jewish supremacist in its attitude toward Arabs.” (A knit skullcap is a symbol for what an American might call the “Modern Orthodox.”) Together, these growing and powerful constituents represent “the end of an Israeli consensus about what is and is not permissible in a democracy — and once the rules are no longer agreed on, political chaos is not far away. Israel has never been in such a place before.”
Halkin does talk about Israeli expansion in the West Bank, saying he long favored Jewish settlement in the territories, while believing that the “only feasible solution” would be a two-state solution with Arabs living in the Jewish state and Jews living in the Arab one. Instead, Israel has reached a point where there is “too much recrimination, too much distrust, too much hatred, too much blind conviction, too much disdain for the notion of a shared humanity, for such a solution to be possible… We’re over the cliff and falling, and no one knows how far down the ground is.”
Method to Our Madness: A Response to Hillel Halkin
Ze’ev Maghen: Jewish Review of Books, Jan. 10, 2023
Ze’ev Maghen, chair of the department of Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University, is hardly a dissenter; instead, his response to Halkin helpfully represents the views of those who voted for the current government. Maghen says the new coalition represents a more honest expression of Zionism than those who support a “liberal, democratic, egalitarian, inclusive, individualist, environmentally conscious, economically prosperous, globally connected, etc., etc., society.” The new government he writes, will defend Israel’s “Jewish nationalist raison d’être, and keep at bay those universalist, Western-based notions that are geared by definition to undermine nationalism in all its forms.” As for the Palestinian issue, he writes, “I’d rather have a fierce, hawkish Zionist in the cockpit than a progressive, Westernized wimp for whom this land, and the people who have returned to it after two millennia of incomparable suffering, don’t mean all that much.”
The Tears of Zion
Rabbi Sharon Brous: Sermon, Feb. 4, 2023
Brous, rabbi of the liberal Ikar community in Los Angeles, doesn’t just defend the right of Diaspora Jews to speak out in defense of Israeli democracy and Palestinian rights, but castigates Jewish leaders and communities who have been reluctant to criticize Israel in the past. “No, this government is not an electoral accident, and it is not an anomaly,” she says. “This moment of extremism has been a long time in the making and our silence has made us complicit.”
—
The post Diaspora alarm over Israel: Your guide to what the critics are saying appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
No Hate Crime Charges Yet Filed After 3 Suspects Arrested in Brutal California Assaults of Israeli-Americans
Screenshot from video circulated on social media showing three unknown attackers punch two Israeli-Americans in San Jose, California on March 8, 2026.
California prosecutors have charged three men with felonies and misdemeanors after an attack on two Israeli-Americans overhead speaking Hebrew outside a San Jose restaurant.
The district attorney of Santa Clara County released a statement on Monday, announcing that “Bruneil Henry Chamaki, 32, of Morgan Hill, along with Roma Akoyans, 20, and Ramon Akoyans, 18, of San Jose, self-surrendered today to the San Jose Police Department.”
Video which widely circulated online last week showed three alleged assailants punching Lior Zeevi, 47, and Daniel Levy, 48, leaving the men with injuries which required hospitalization. District Attorney Jeff Rosen said “we won’t tolerate pummeling a victim on the ground in front of a restaurant or anywhere, and we will hold the perpetrators fully accountable.”
Prosecutors have not yet filed hate crime charges against Chamaki—who works as a lawyer—and the Akoyans brothers noting in the release that “these charges do not reflect allegations of a hate crime at this time. However, this remains an active investigation. The DA’s Office is working closely with SJPD to review all new information. We encourage anyone with knowledge about this crime to contact the San Jose Police Department.”
According to the police report, before the assault outside Augustine restaurant on Santana Row began, one of the attackers yelled “f— Jews.” As the three men ran away toward the Valley Fair mall after the beating, a witness heard one of them say “don’t f— with Iran,” according to the police report. The witness told police that he thought the suspects were Persian because he was Persian too.
The arresting officers named the offenses in the police report as “simple assault” and “violate civil rights by force/threat of force.”
Chamaki worked as a lawyer for Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP until January. The firm confirmed the separation and released a statement to Fox KTVU saying “the conduct described in the reports is deeply troubling. Murphy Austin condemns antisemitism, violence, and acts of hatred in any form.” The police report lists the Akoyans as living in San Jose and Roma as a student at West Valley College. The Santa Clara county court scheduled an arraignment for the three suspects on May 12.
The invocation of Iran during the assaults against Levy and Zeevi places the crime as another example of violence targeting Jewish individuals and institutions in response to the US-Israeli attacks against the leadership of the Islamic regime in Iran which resulted in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28.
On Saturday, two individuals detonated a bomb outside a Jewish school in Amsterdam, causing minor damage. An Islamist terror group claimed responsibility, as well as for recent strikes on synagogues in Rotterdam and Liege. On Monday, the Netherlands announced the arrest of four unnamed teenagers—aged 19, 18 and 17—suspected of involvement with the Rotterdam attacks. Dutch prosecutors said the crime sought to instill “serious fear in a population group, in this case the Jewish community.”
On Saturday, the Israel Defense Forces revealed that the brother of Ayman Mohamad Ghazali—the man who committed a terrorist attack on Thursday against the Temple Israel synagogue in Michign—served as a Hezbollah commander who died the previous week in an Israeli airstrike.
Ghazali had rammed his pickup truck through the building’s doors and drove through a hallway, the vehicle loaded with fireworks, before dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police, failing in his mission to murder Jews.
On March 1, Ndiaga Diagne, 53, allegedly fired rounds from an AR-15 rifle at people outside Buford’s bar in Austin, Texas, resulting in three deaths and 16 injuries. Investigators say that he wore a sweatshirt that proclaimed him as “Property of Allah” and that a t-shirt underneath featured an Iranian flag design. In addition, when searching Diagne’s home, they found an Iranian flag and photos of Iranian leaders.
The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has labeled the mass shooting as a “potential act of terrorism” with Acting Special Agent in Charge Alex Doran warning that it was too early to name the motive in spite of the available evidence.
Uncategorized
Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel
Joe Kent, director of the federal National Counterterrorism Center, resigned Tuesday in a letter to President Donald Trump that claimed Israeli officials had used lies to convince Trump to start the current United States-Israel war against Iran.
Some administration officials, notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio, had previously asserted that Israel compelled the U.S. to strike Iran; Rubio later tempered those claims. But Kent, a controversial figure who has repeatedly engaged with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, made more sweeping — and unproven — assertions in his letter, which Kent posted to social media, declaring the president of a victim of an Israeli “misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.”
He further claimed Israel had used similar lies “to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war” which he called “manufactured by Israel” without pointing to any evidence. Israeli officials expressed support for striking Sadaam Hussein at the time, but then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also reportedly warned President George W. Bush not to occupy the country.
Kent’s departure may be a sign that the isolationist wing of the conservative movement — associated with antisemitic influencers like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes — may be losing influence with the White House. Despite repeated fulminations against the war by isolationists inside and outside of the administration, Trump has shown little sign of recalibrating his approach to the Iran war and recently proposed a possible military incursion in Cuba.
The White House issued a scathing response to Kent’s claim in his resignation letter, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating, “the absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries, is both insulting and laughable.”
It remains to be seen if Kent’s resignation will trigger a wave of departures from within the administration. Congressional Republicans have largely stayed aligned with the president. And Trump himself has moved between suggesting the conflict could end “very soon” and insisting that the United States has not yet achieved “ultimate victory.”
Tulsi Gabbard, who was Kent’s boss in her role as director of national intelligence, once sold campaign merchandise with the slogan “No War With Iran” but has reportedly remained largely silent during the current war while being sidelined within the administration.
Vice President JD Vance, closely aligned with the party’s isolationist wing, reportedly expressed private objections about the Iran war but appears to have been overruled and has yet to publicly voice that view in public.
Meanwhile, Rubio, a longtime foreign policy hawk, has emerged a key advisor to Trump, who has privately surveyed insider opinion about Rubio emerging as heir in 2028.
Kent’s nomination to lead a top counterterrorism agency was contentious from the start. A retired Green Beret and former CIA officer, Kent had twice run unsuccessfully for a House seat in Washington state. In his first bid, Kent was interviewed by a neo-Nazi YouTuber and also met with Fuentes, who has denied the Holocaust. Kent later disavowed Fuentes.
Amy Spitalnick, chief of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, cautioned liberal opponents of the Iran war not to welcome Kent as an ally. “He’s an extremist with deep ties ot Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers who never should have been in this role in the first place,” Spitalnick said in a statement. “Of course, Kent’s own post announcing his resignation is riddled with antisemitic tropes under the guise of blaming Israel.”
Trump, who nominated Kent to his post in the administration and previously supported him, sought to cut bait in comments to reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon.
“I always thought he was weak on security — very weak on security,” Trump said. “It’s a good thing that he’s out.
The post Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Dueling letters from Jewish groups dispute prevalence of antisemitism at UCLA
More than 100 Jewish faculty and staff at the University of California, Los Angeles published a letter Monday disputing the Trump administration’s claim in a federal lawsuit against the university that the school has fostered a hostile climate for its Jewish employees.
Following an investigation launched just weeks after Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. Department of Justice filed the case last month, arguing that “UCLA failed to live up to its systemwide commitment to diversity and equal opportunity when it stood by as Jewish employees were subjected to harassment.”
But signatories to the letter dispute this characterization and say that the lawsuit mischaracterizes pro-Palestinian speech and activism as expressions of antisemitism that would justify a federal civil rights case.
“A ‘hostile work environment’ under Title VII is one where we are being harassed so severely or pervasively as to alter our conditions of employment,” the letter states. “It would be legally unprecedented for a court to rule that any category of faculty and staff faces such a hostile work environment primarily on the basis of student speech.”
The lawsuit and letter come on the heels of reporting by ProPublica, the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Los Angeles Times that described deep apprehension among career lawyers within the Department of Justice over the Trump administration’s investigations into the University of California system and its legal claims against UCLA.
Several government lawyers told the publications that the White House directed them to find evidence that UCLA and other campuses in the statewide system had allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place, rather than conducting open-ended investigations to determine whether any legal violations had occurred.
Not all Jewish faculty at UCLA have opposed the lawsuit, and the members of UCLA’s antisemitism task force — which had been critical of the school’s handling of antisemitism claims in its 2024 report — did not sign the open letter.
UCLA was the site of some of the most dramatic scenes and allegations during the Gaza solidarity encampment movement in the spring of 2024. Pro-Israel groups claimed that pro-Palestinian protesters had banned Jewish students from central areas on campus, pointing to bans on “Zionists” entering areas around the encampment. Some members of the local Jewish community subsequently attacked the encampment with pepper spray, fireworks and sticks in one of the most violent incidents of its kind.
The Jewish Faculty Resilience Group at UCLA told the Los Angeles Times that they were not opposed to claims made by the Trump administration: “The DOJ lawsuit reflects the experiences reported by Jewish faculty who described serious harassment, exclusion, and retaliation based on their Jewish identities,” the group said.
The lawsuit focuses on similar allegations as previous federal claims against the school, including that it allowed Jewish faculty and staff to be barred from certain areas of campus by student protesters.
The open letter was signed by 132 Jewish faculty and staff at the university. It is not clear how many faculty are represented by the resilience group, or how many total Jewish employees work at UCLA.
The post Dueling letters from Jewish groups dispute prevalence of antisemitism at UCLA appeared first on The Forward.