Connect with us

Uncategorized

Prominent Jewish leaders add to drumbeat of criticism of Israel’s new government

WASHINGTON (JTA) — A slate of 169 prominent American Jews, including former leaders of major mainstream Jewish organizations, called on U.S. politicians not to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a signal of worsening relations between the new far-right Israeli government and the U.S. Jewish community.

The statement Wednesday signals increased anxiety among Jewish leaders about how to maintain support for Israel when it is led by a government promoting policies alien to the values of an overwhelmingly liberal American Jewish community. It also departs substantially from a pro-Israel community that has sought to label various forms of criticizing Israel as antisemitic.

It comes just days after 134 historians of Jewish and Israeli history, based both in Israel and the United States, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of threatening the country’s existence through his agreement to far-reaching reforms advocated by his coalition partners on the far right.

It also comes just weeks after hundreds of rabbis from Reform, Orthodox and Conservative congregations said they would not allow extremist ministers in the new Cabinet to address their congregations and would encourage their Jewish communities to boycott them as well.

The statement by the prominent American Jews addresses the newly installed Congress, and anticipates increased U.S. Jewish criticism of Israel because of the new government in Jerusalem. Among its signatories are past leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations that have traditionally shied from Israel criticism, among them the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish federations system, as well as past leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements.

Notably absent are current leaders, who have been reluctant to speak out about new members of the Israeli government who want to greatly expand Jewish settlement in the West Bank, curb advocacy for minority rights and weaken Israel’s Supreme Court.

“As the 118th Congress begins its work, we believe it is important to state our concerns — which are widely shared by supporters of Israel here and around the world and by a significant number of Israelis — regarding some of the policies proposed by members of Israel’s new government,” the statement says.

It lists among those policies proposals by Netanyahu’s new government to weaken the independence of the judiciary, add restrictions to the Law of Return determining Jewish immigration, restrict non-Orthodox religious practice in Israel and expand Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank.

“Our criticisms emanate from a love for Israel and a steadfast support for its security and well-being,” said the statement. “Some will try to dismiss their validity by labeling them antisemitic.” Instead, the statement said, the criticisms “reflect a real concern that the new government’s direction mirrors anti-democratic trends that we see arising elsewhere — in other nations and here in the U.S., rather than reinforcing the shared democratic values that are foundational to the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

The statement notably appends a guide to detecting what is and isn’t antisemitic in discourse about Israel that differs markedly in its emphasis from a definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

The IHRA definition, which pro-Israel organizations have sought in recent years to introduce into legislation in the United States and elsewhere, focuses on Israel criticism that its authors deem antisemitic; the guide attached to Wednesday’s statement focuses instead on criticism of Israel that does not merit being called antisemitic.

“Mistaking political disagreements about Israel for antisemitism is counterproductive,” it says. “It diverts the debate away from the substance to whether something is — or is not — antisemitic. It hinders policy debate about Israel. It distracts from addressing real instances of antisemitism and bigotry.”

The guide issued alongside the statement also says anti-Zionism and Israel boycotts may in some instances not be antisemitic, a sharp difference from ministers of the new Israeli government who say unequivocally that those things are always antisemitic.

“Boycotting goods made in the West Bank and/or Israel is not antisemitic unless it specifically singles out Israel because of its Jewish character,” said the statement. Anti-Zionism can be antisemitic if it specifically denies the Jewish right to self-determination or it employs an antisemitic trope. But opposition to Zionism in and of itself is not necessarily antisemitic.”

Among the signatories are Tom Dine, the executive director of AIPAC in its period of massive growth in the 1980s; Alan Solow, who chaired the Conference of Presidents during the Obama presidency; Rabbi David Ellenson, the former president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, the chancellor emeritus of The Jewish Theological Seminary.

Other signatories include Rabbi David A. Teutsch, the former president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College; Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the former president of the Union for Reform Judaism; Rabbi David Saperstein, formerly the longtime head of Reform’s Religious Action Center; Joel Tauber, a former chairman of United Jewish Communities and the United Jewish Appeal, and Joe Kanfer, a former chairman of the Jewish Federations of North America.

Earlier this week, a slate of 134 historians of Jewish and Israeli history in Israeli American universities accused Netanyahu’s new government of “endangering the very existence of the State of Israel and the Israeli nation.” The statement said Netanyahu and his allies are dismantling the protections against government overreach that Israel’s founders deliberately put into place.

“Israel can be likened to a ship sailing the high seas,” the  statement says. “The current government is taking out the keel, consciously dismantling the state’s institutions.”


The post Prominent Jewish leaders add to drumbeat of criticism of Israel’s new government appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

New Analysis Questions Legality of Campus BDS Efforts Against Israel

Cornell’s divestment protests continued during the university’s commencement ceremony, May 25, 2024, during which students interrupted a speech by President Martha Pollack with chanting and canvas signs. Photo: Reuters Connect

A newly released research paper is raising fresh legal questions about the wave of campus and institutional campaigns calling for divestment from Israel, arguing that such efforts may violate anti-discrimination laws in the United States.

The report, published by Northwestern Law School professor Max M. Schanzenbach and Harvard Law School professor Robert H. Sitkoff, examines the growing push by activists affiliated with the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS), which urges governments, universities, and companies to cut economic ties with Israel in the first step to the Jewish state’s eradication.

According to the paper, divestment campaigns that single out Israeli institutions or businesses could potentially run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

BDS advocates argue that their campaign is a form of political protest designed to pressure Israel to change its policies. The movement, formally launched by anti-Israel activists in the mid-2000s, has called for boycotts of Israeli goods, divestment from companies linked to Israel, and government sanctions.

But the new analysis contends that when governments or public institutions adopt such policies, the underlying legality could be questionable. The authors argue that targeting Israel specifically for economic exclusion could conflict with existing anti-discrimination statutes or state laws aimed at preventing boycotts of Israel.

More than half of US states have enacted legislation limiting participation in BDS-related boycotts or requiring government contractors to certify that they are not boycotting Israel. In some states, including California, laws restrict the awarding of public contracts or funding to organizations that participate in boycotts targeting the country.

The paper also challenges the argument frequently made by BDS supporters that such boycotts are protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. While individuals may advocate for boycotts as political speech, the authors argue that institutional policies, particularly those adopted by government bodies or public universities, could still violate anti-discrimination or procurement laws depending on how they are implemented.

The paper raises potential anti-discrimination concerns surrounding divestment campaigns that target Israeli companies. The authors argue that some boycott or divestment proposals could expose universities or public institutions to legal vulnerability if investment decisions are based primarily on a company’s Israeli national origin rather than specific conduct. Under certain US civil rights laws and state policies governing public institutions, actions that single out individuals or entities because of national origin may trigger discrimination claims. The paper suggests that if divestment policies are framed broadly against Israeli businesses as a category, rather than tied to particular corporate activities, institutions implementing them could face legal challenges alleging unequal treatment.

The analysis argues that modern divestment campaigns targeting Israel differ significantly from the anti-apartheid divestment movement against South Africa. The paper contends that while many universities in the 1980s adopted selective restrictions on companies directly tied to South Africa’s apartheid system, often aligned with international sanctions and corporate conduct codes, the current iteration of the BDS campaign against Israel frequently calls for broader exclusions based on a company’s ties to Israel itself, potentially creating legal risks such as national-origin discrimination issues.

Divestment campaigns have become especially prominent in recent years on US college campuses, where student groups have pushed universities to withdraw endowment investments from companies tied to Israel or its military. Critics, however, argue the campaigns unfairly single out the world’s only Jewish state and risk creating discriminatory policies against Israeli businesses or academics.

In the two years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 people and kidnapping of 251 hostages throughout southern Israel, campus activists have intensified efforts to implement divestment policies on university campuses. While universities have mostly resisted these efforts, federal lawmakers have advanced legislation to truncate divestment initiatives before they gain traction. For instance, in 2024, Congress introduced “The Protect Economic Freedom Act,” which would render universities that participate in the BDS movement against Israel ineligible for federal funding under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, prohibiting them from receiving federal student aid. The bill would also mandate that colleges and universities submit evidence that they are not participating in commercial boycotts against the Jewish state.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

UK Holds Four Men on Suspicion of Iranian Spying on Jewish Sites

Director General of MI5 Ken McCallum delivers the annual Director General’s Speech at Thames House, the headquarters of the UK’s Security Service, in London, Britain, Oct. 16, 2025. Photo: Jonathan Brady/Pool via REUTERS

British police arrested four men on Friday on suspicion of helping Iran’s intelligence services carry out surveillance of people and locations linked to the Jewish community in London.

Detectives said one of the men was Iranian, while three had dual British-Iranian nationality. The arrests were part of a “long-running investigation,” police added, indicating the men‘s alleged activities pre-dated the US and Israeli bombardment of Iran, which started last Saturday.

British lawmakers and the domestic spy agency MI5 have long warned of threats posed to Britain by Iran. Three Iranians were charged with offenses under Britain’s National Security Act relating to assisting a foreign intelligence service last May.

In a separate investigation last year, police arrested five men, four of them Iranian, over a suspected plot to target specific premises, which British media said was the Israeli embassy. They were later released without charge.

“The Jewish community and the wider public will understandably be concerned by today’s arrests. We continue to monitor the situation closely,” interior minister Shabana Mahmood said on X.

Police said the four detained men were aged between 22 and 55. Six others were also arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender, and police said searches were ongoing.

Speaking about the current Iranian conflict on Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that people would use it to divide the country.

“The government is reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom – Jewish and Muslim alike – making sure communities and places of worship have appropriate, protective security in place,” he told a press conference.

Illustrating the threat from Iran, Britain’s MI5 spy boss said that over two years from 2022-2024, his service and British police had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill British nationals or individuals based in Britain who were regarded by Tehran as a threat.

Britain also recorded a 4% rise in antisemitic incidents in 2025, making it the second-worst year on record, a charity said. Two men were killed last October during an attack on a synagogue in the northern English city of Manchester.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Turkey Asks Britain’s MI6 to Step Up Protection of Syria’s Sharaa, Sources Say; Ankara Denies Report

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa attends the Ministry of Awqaf conference titled “Unity of Islamic Discourse” at the Conference Palace in Damascus, Syria, Feb. 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

Turkey’s intelligence agency asked its British counterpart MI6 last month to take a larger role in protecting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa after recent assassination plots, according to five people familiar with the matter.

After this story was published, Turkey denied that its intelligence agency MIT had made any such request to MI6.

The request highlights efforts by foreign allies to shore up a country still shaken by sporadic violence 15 months after the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, with the US-Israeli war on Iran now rattling the wider region.

Those allies see Sharaa as crucial to preventing a relapse into sectarian fighting or civil war, after 14 years of civil conflict drove millions of refugees abroad and allowed Islamic State to control swathes of Syria.

The militants last month stepped up attacks on military and security personnel across Syria and declared Sharaa, a former rebel, their “number one foe.”

It was unclear what specifically Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, or MIT, had asked of MI6, or what new role, if any, MI6 had taken up.

The Turkish presidency said in a statement issued by its communications directorate that MIT maintains effective cooperation in the fight against terrorism with the international intelligence community and security units in Syria, but that this story did not reflect the truth.

“Contrary to what is claimed in the report in question, it is not true that MIT has made any request to MI6 regarding the protection of the Syrian President or sought to assume such a role,” it said.

ANXIETY RISES IN SYRIA OVER ISLAMIC STATE

Turkey, Britain, and the US last year threw their backing behind Sharaa to try to reunite and rebuild his country of 26 million. London and Washington have scrapped most sanctions on Syria and on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Islamist group he once led.

The sources who spoke to Reuters requested anonymity owing to the sensitivity of the matter.

MIT, the Turkish foreign ministry, Britain’s foreign office and Syria’s defense and interior ministries did not comment when contacted ahead of publication.

The sources, including Syrian and foreign officials, all cited rising anxiety over a series of reported Islamic State plots to kill Sharaa.

A Turkish source said that MIT, which has played a key role in helping the new government to establish itself, appealed to MI6 for more support after one such incident last month. A senior Syrian security source said the request came after a “high-risk assassination plot,” adding that MIT, MI6, and Syrian authorities were constantly sharing intelligence.

Details of the plot were unclear.

A separate Western intelligence source briefed on the matter believed Turkey wanted to introduce a Western presence in Damascus to provide something of a buffer between the agencies of Turkey and Israel, currently at loggerheads.

REPORTED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS AGAINST SHARAA

Last year, Sharaa and two senior cabinet ministers were targeted by Islamic State in five foiled assassination attempts, according to the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism. In November, Reuters reported that Syrian authorities had foiled two of the attempts.

Describing Sharaa as a “watchdog” of the global anti-Islamic State coalition, the group mounted six attacks on Syrian authorities last month in what it called a “new phase.”

On Thursday, Damascus openly acknowledged for the first time that it coordinates with MIT, saying they had cooperated to foil an Islamic State attack in the capital.

Turkish security sources said MIT had identified a team of three preparing remote bomb attacks, enabling Syrian counterparts to prevent an “imminent assault.”

A US diplomat briefed on the matter said MIT’s request to MI6 had been prompted by the Islamic State resurgence.

The Western intelligence source said the two agencies could intensify joint planning and technical operations, but that no decision had been made on whether to send British personnel to Damascus.

A Syrian security source said a physical British presence would be “highly risky.” They said MI6 had been discussed at a meeting in Damascus on Feb. 26 between a delegation headed by Britain’s special envoy for Syria, Ann Snow, and Syria’s deputy interior minister, Major General Abdulqader Tahan.

Sharaa was a commander of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria before cutting ties with the group in 2016, then led a coalition of Islamist rebel factions in late 2024 to topple Assad.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News