RSS
Jewish Ambivalence About Fighting Antisemitism
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
JNS.org – Jews have long been champions of freedom of speech in the United States, yet they often have not hesitated to advocate canceling speakers who are antisemitic or virulently anti-Israel. Many Jews feel that those who spread hatred against them or Israel should face consequences, but they are frequently uneasy about the mechanisms used to deliver those consequences. This ambivalence was true before Donald Trump returned to the White House, but has become more prevalent since his administration began taking aggressive steps against antisemites and their institutional enablers.
Free-speech advocates often invoke Louis Brandeis’s famous line, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” (the exact quote was “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”). With apologies to the great Jewish jurist, when it comes to antisemitism, this is pure rubbish. The idea that exposure will neutralize hatred has been disproven by centuries of Jewish persecution. Hate doesn’t melt away in the light; it mutates and metastasizes. Permitting antisemites to spread their rhetoric on campus doesn’t disinfect; instead, it creates a toxic environment for Jewish students and undermines academic integrity. Professor Scott Galloway put it best: “Free speech is at its freest when it’s hate speech against Jews.”
Even while extolling free speech, Jews are often willing to oppose antisemites speaking on campus. For example, last year, alumni, faculty, community groups and parents of students at Brown University signed a letter urging the administration to disinvite U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (who was recently reappointed to her position over Jews’ and US objections) because of her history of antisemitic and anti-Israel remarks.
This tension between the desire not to appear as suppressors of debate and the need to confront hate speech is torturous. Jews often find themselves asking: Is opposing a bigot’s right to speak a betrayal of liberal values or a defense of moral ones?
Though none would admit it, the attitude of campus protesters is: We have the right to be antisemites, and no one has the right to say or do anything about it. So, they are understandably upset when anyone calls them out as bigots or makes them pay for the consequences. This is why so many cowardly hide behind masks, unwilling to take responsibility for their words or actions.
Antisemites complain, for example, when groups like the Canary Mission publicize their public statements. It’s like pulling a hood off a Klansman. Publishing personal information about antisemites is not kosher, but exposing what they say is fair game. Students who support terrorists deserve to be shamed. They enjoy no First Amendment protection from being called out for being immoral or just plain stupid.
If employers decline to hire individuals who support hate, that’s not censorship; it’s discernment. International students can speak their minds, but they may be subject to deportation if they endorse designated terrorist groups like Hamas. Exercising that authority is not persecution; it’s policy.
When the antisemitic tsunami hit campuses after Oct. 7, nothing seemed to stem the tide. Now that the Trump administration has started to deport antisemites and withhold government funds from universities, we are finally seeing universities take the problem seriously. True, the administration is using a sledgehammer tactic that is making some Jews uncomfortable, but the slap-on-the-wrist approach of the Biden administration, on the rare occasions it was applied, was ineffective. Some Jews have said these steps will make antisemitism worse. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of antisemitism, which is that no excuse is needed to hate Jews. It is also difficult to determine whether the objection is to the punishment or that it fulfills Trump’s campaign promise.
The constant refrain that pro-Palestinian (they don’t admit to being pro-terrorist) voices are being stifled is easily disproven by their ubiquity. Some universities are finally suspending Students for Justice in Palestine groups (they should be expelling the members), and yet they find other ways to express their views. The annual anti-Israel hate weeks featuring speakers and films were held on many campuses over the last month without any interference.
Many of those complaining the loudest about freedom of speech support the boycott of Israel; that is, suppressing the speech of academics and students who wish to engage with Israel. Many professors are willing to defend the “academic freedom” of colleagues to use their classrooms to advance anti-Israel agendas. Jewish professors are rarely willing to speak out.
Even though the U.S. government and dozens of countries around the world have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, faculty, often led by Jewish professors, fight against its use on campus, speciously claiming it stifles free speech. However, the refusal to define antisemitism ensures that no behavior can be deemed a violation. Without boundaries, there can be no enforcement, and impunity has thrived.
One group of Jews came up with the Nexus definition of antisemitism, which professor Cary Nelson described as an effort to “exonerate anti-Zionism by any means necessary.” Now, the Nexus Project is objecting to Trump’s crackdown on students and universities, and presenting an alternative strategy that, predictably, protects the antisemites by opposing the deportation or labeling of antisemites and defending diversity, equity, and inclusion. Their recommendations focus less on defending Jews than on challenging the administration’s authority and pushing unrelated policy goals, such as ending the war in Gaza and promoting a Palestinian state.
Let’s be honest: When we learn about antisemites coming to campus or elsewhere, there will be no shortage of principled Jewish voices defending their right to speak. But do we want to give them a platform? Shouldn’t neo-Nazis, Islamists, white supremacists, Hamas supporters and other antisemites be canceled, condemned and marginalized without apology?
Germany is a democracy that still has laws against hate speech. Denying the Holocaust, for example, is prohibited. Social media is the most dangerous medium for spreading antisemitism. In this instance, Trump’s defense of an unregulated digital marketplace fails the Jews. Germany, by contrast, holds platforms accountable for the hate they amplify. American Jews are equivocal. Some are free-speech absolutists, while others call for moderated online posts. What did the Jews who met Elon Musk say? Did they tell him—free speech be damned—keep the antisemites off X? Or did they simply grumble that they wish there weren’t so many of them?
Free speech is a core Jewish value, but so is the defense of Jewish life. The era of ambivalence must end. We cannot allow our principles to be used to undermine our safety. History has shown where that leads.
The post Jewish Ambivalence About Fighting Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
China Expands Influence Campaign Targeting Israel as Way to Hurt US, Study Finds
Chinese and US flags flutter outside the building of an American company in Beijing, China, April 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tingshu Wang
China has increasingly used state media and covert campaigns to spread anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives in the United States, according to a new study.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, has released a report examining how China’s state media portrays Israel and the United States as solely responsible for the war in Gaza, depicting them as destabilizing actors while spreading anti-Israel and antisemitic messages.
“It is evident that China and its proxies play a significant role in the current wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the United States,” Ofir Dayan, a research associate in the Israel-China Policy Center at INSS, writes in the report.
According to Dayan, China’s dissemination of anti-Israel narratives is not intended to directly harm Israel but rather to undermine the US, while preserving its valuable diplomatic and economic ties with Jerusalem.
“Israel is used as a tool to advance Beijing’s claim that Washington destabilizes both the international system and the regions where it operates,” the report says.
While China’s primary aim is to target the United States, Israel ends up suffering “collateral damage” as a result, the study finds.
In advancing these objectives, INSS explains that China covertly conducts influence campaigns across the United States, promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives, including conspiracy theories about “Jewish control” of politics, the economy, and the media.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused China, along with Qatar, of orchestrating a campaign in Western media to “besiege” Israel by undermining its allies’ support.
There is “an effort to besiege — not isolate as much as besiege Israel — that is orchestrated by the same forces that supported Iran,” Netanyahu said, speaking to a delegation of 250 US state legislators at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.
“One is China. And the other is Qatar. They are organizing an attack on Israel … [through] the social media of the Western world and the United States,” the Israeli leader continued. “We will have to counter it, and we will counter it with our own methods.”
According to the INSS report, China’s role in promoting anti-Israel activity in the United States is evident in the narratives it spreads — both publicly, through state-run media, and covertly, through targeted cyber operations.
For example, China Daily — the official news outlet of the Chinese Communist Party — has been openly critical of Israel since the start of the Gaza war, using its coverage to attack Washington and depict it as a destabilizing force fueling conflict worldwide.
The Chinese news outlet has also published articles contending that neither Israel nor the United States care about Gazans or Israeli hostages held by Hamas, accusing the US of instigating wars for domestic political gain, and attempting to create divisions in American society by portraying support for Israel as unpopular.
The study also explains how China exploited the wave of protests across US universities following the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, to deepen divisions within American society.
It portrayed anti-Israel protesters as calm and peaceful defenders of free expression, while depicting pro-Israel demonstrators as violent.
“Posts on heavily censored social media in China were even more blatant, and at times antisemitic, claiming that Israel controls the United States and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany,” the report says.
“Some referred to Israel as a ‘terrorist organization,’ while describing Hamas as a resistance organization and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories,” it continues.
In the past, the US State Department has accused China of promoting conspiracy theories and antisemitism within the United States.
China also carries out covert influence campaigns through targeted cyber operations, aimed in part at shaping Israel’s image in the United States and undermining US-Israel relations.
According to the study, China-linked cyber campaigns have used troll networks to spread malicious content about Israel, disseminating antisemitic messages to American audiences that falsely claim Jewish and Israeli control over US politics.
RSS
US Lawmakers Slam Zohran Mamdani Over Pledge to Scrap IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
Two members of the US Congress on Wednesday slammed New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani after he pledged to abandon a widely used definition of antisemitism if elected.
Reps. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, and Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a joint statement that Mamdani’s plan to scrap the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is “dangerous” and “shameful.” The IHRA definition — adopted by dozens of US states, dozens of countries, and hundreds of governing institutions, including the European Union and United Nations — has been a cornerstone of global efforts to monitor and combat antisemitic hate.
“Walking away from IHRA is not just reckless — it undermines the fight against antisemitism at a time when hate crimes are spiking,” Lawler said in his own statement. Gottheimer echoed that concern, arguing that dismantling the definition “sends exactly the wrong message to Jewish communities who feel under siege.”
The backlash followed Mamdani’s comments last week to Bloomberg News in which he vowed, if elected, to reverse New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order in June adopting the IHRA standard. Mamdani, a democratic socialist and state assemblymember, argued that the IHRA definition blurs the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel and risks chilling free speech.
“I am someone who has supported and support BDS [the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel] and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he said at the time.
The BDS movement seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
“Let’s be extremely clear: the BDS movement is antisemitic. Efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist are antisemitic. And refusing to outright condemn the violent call to ‘globalize the intifada’ — offering only that you’d discourage its use — is indefensible,” Lawler and Gottheimer said in their joint statement, referring to Mamdani’s recent partial backtracking after his initial defense of the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada.”
“There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan — it is hate speech, plain and simple,” the lawmakers continued. “Given the sharp spike in antisemitic violence, families across the Tri-State area should be alarmed. Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews.”
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
In a statement, the Mamdani campaign confirmed that the candidate would not use the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which major civil rights groups have said is essential for fighting an epidemic of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping across the US.
“A Mamdani administration will approach antisemitism in line with the Biden administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism — a strategy that emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue,” Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec told the New York Post.
Lawler and Gottheimer’s pushback comes as Congress debates the Antisemitism Awareness Act, legislation that would codify IHRA’s definition into federal law. Advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have urged lawmakers to back the measure, warning that antisemitic incidents have surged nationwide over the past two years and having a clear definition will better enable law enforcement and others to combat it.
For Mamdani, the controversy over the IHRA definition adds a new flashpoint to a mayoral campaign already drawing national attention.
A little-known politician before this year’s Democratic primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the BDS movement. He has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani especially came under fire during the summer when he initially defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. However, Mamdani has since backpedaled on his support for the phrase, saying that he would discourage his supporters from using the slogan.
RSS
Jewish Leaders in UK, Canada, Australia Urge Governments to Reconsider Palestinian State Recognition
Women hold up flags during a a pro-Palestinian rally in Hyde Park, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 15, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Lewis Jackson
Jewish umbrella organizations in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have jointly expressed “grave concerns” over their governments’ plans to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next week.
In a joint statement, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Canadian Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs urged their governments to reconsider their intention to recognize a “State of Palestine.”
This month, several Western countries — including France — are expected to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly, marking their latest effort to increase international pressure on Israel over the war in Gaza.
However, Jewish communities in these countries have strongly opposed the move, urging their governments to concentrate diplomatic efforts on securing the release of all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas and dismantling the Palestinian terrorist group’s military and political power.
They also emphasized the need to ensure humanitarian aid reaches civilians in Gaza without being diverted for terrorist operations and that all parties comply with international law.
“We are gravely concerned that our governments’ announced intentions to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN this month are seen by Hamas as a reward for its violence and rejectionism towards Israel, and these announcements have therefore lessened rather than maximized pressure for the hostages’ release and for Hamas to disarm,” the joint statement read.
“Extremists have answered [Hamas’s] call for escalations in global violence by carrying out brutal assaults on Jews — citizens of each of our countries,”” it continued. “For the sake of a better future for Israelis, Palestinians, and the wider Middle East, it is an imperative to avoid serving this agenda.”
Supporters of the recognition argue that this move would actually undermine Hamas’s control, noting that the terrorist group has never supported a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and would likely oppose a Palestinian state since it would have no governing role.
However, Hamas has praised such plans to recognize a Palestinian state as “the fruits of Oct. 7,” citing the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as the reason for increasing Western support.
“The fruits of Oct. 7 are what caused the entire world to open its eyes to the Palestinian issue,” senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.
Israeli officials and opponents of such recognition argue that Hamad’s remarks show these countries are, essentially, rewarding acts of terrorism.
US President Donald Trump has strongly opposed the move, warning that it would hinder Gaza ceasefire negotiations and empower Hamas instead of advancing peace.
During a bilateral meeting on Thursday amid Trump’s state visit to the UK, he was asked about Britain’s plans to recognize a Palestinian state.
“I have a disagreement with the prime minister on that score, one of our few disagreements, actually,” Trump said, referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
For his part, Starmer said he and Trump were aligned on the shared goal of achieving peace in the region.
“We absolutely agree on the need for peace and a road map, because the situation in Gaza is intolerable,” the British leader said.
In their joint statement, Jewish communities in the UK, Canada, and Australia argued that their governments’ plans to recognize a Palestinian state without making Hamas’s disarmament and the release of hostages a precondition would set back, rather than advance, prospects for a genuine two-state peace.
“Our governments are in effect saying that the fulfilment of these requirements post-recognition will be taken on trust and left for some unspecified time in the future,” the statement read. “This is a posture that lacks credibility, borders on recklessness, and sets up Palestinian statehood for failure from the outset.”
“Let it never be forgotten that Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza initiated this war [and] they remain openly committed to the genocidal goal of destroying Israel as a state and expelling or eradicating its Jewish population,” it continued.
Western powers have been negotiating with the Palestinian Authority (PA) on conditions for Gaza governance after Hamas is removed from power, while the PA continues to pledge reforms — a strategy experts say is unlikely to succeed given its lack of credibility and ongoing support for terrorism against Israel.
Jewish leaders have argued that these governments appear to be accepting the PA’s promises of reform at face value, rather than waiting to see if its behavior truly changes.
The PA, which has long been riddled with accusations of corruption, has maintained for years a so-called “pay-for-slay” program, which rewards terrorists and their families for carrying out attacks against Israelis.
Under the policy, the Palestinian Authority Martyr’s Fund makes official payments to Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, the families of “martyrs”” killed in attacks on Israelis, and injured Palestinian terrorists. Reports estimate that approximately 8 percent of the PA’s budget is allocated to paying stipends to convicted terrorists and their families.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas had announced plans to reform this system earlier this year, but the PA has continued to issue payments.
The Palestinian Authority has been lying to the world for decades.
Once again, they are trying to whitewash the “Pay-for-Slay” policy of payments to terrorists and their families. Instead of paying the “Prisoners” and “Martyrs” through the old method, they are paying through a… https://t.co/IDlSEBqYDn
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) September 17, 2025
The PA has also avoided holding elections for nearly 20 years, largely due to Abbas’s limited support among Palestinians.
According to a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), if an agreement is reached to end the war in Gaza, only 40 percent of Palestinians “support the return of the PA to managing the affairs of the Gaza Strip,” while 56 percent oppose it.