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.
Uncategorized
How the Haskalah Changed the Way Jews Experienced Judaism
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
The word “Haskalah” conjures up a period of upheaval in 18th century European Jewish life. If you were to ask anybody what the term Haskalah refers to nowadays, in Israel you will be told that “Haskalah Gevoha” means higher education. But once upon a time, Haskalah was a scandalous word to some, and stood for intellectual freedom to others.
It was Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) who was (perhaps unfairly) regarded as the founder of Haskalah — the attempt to combine the Jewish religion and its scholarship with secular cultural and scientific advances.
Mendelssohn was given permission to settle in Berlin, where he came into contact with non-Jewish scholarship. His brilliant philosophical mind soon led to him being accepted into the German cultural elite.
Mendelssohn saw the danger of Jews moving out of the ghetto to assimilate. He believed that by translating the Torah into German, the danger could be averted. He argued that Judaism did not conflict with modern states. It is worth reading his book, Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism. In it, he claimed that Jews were not a threat to established societies and religions, and should be granted equality.
Sadly, although he remained completely Orthodox himself, within a generation, all his children married out and abandoned Judaism. At the time, this seemed to negate his position. But his position found support and admirers in much of Central Europe, even in rabbinic circles.
Back in Eastern Europe and Russia, the leaders of the Jewish world saw this trend of accepting and studying secular subjects as a threat to their Jewish life.
When Napoleon attacked Russia, many rabbis sided with the antisemitic tzar against Napoleon, because they feared that if Napoleon brought equality to the Jews, many would abandon Judaism altogether. They also believed that loosened restrictions in Central and Western Europe were leading to assimilation.
This era was described as a “Kulturkampf” (culture war) between the old and the new. And either way, Jews were seen as outsiders. This is why Theodor Herzl believed that Jews would always be alien, and only a Jewish state could keep the Jewish people safe.
Within the Jewish world, the desire for wider knowledge in the realms of medicine, mathematics, and philosophy had always been encouraged by great rabbinic authorities from Maimonides to the Vilna Gaon. But they were not approved for mass consumption.
The movement to open up to the cultural world became known as the Haskalah — with rival camps supporting their own systems of education, language, literature, drama, and ideology. But it often turned into an anti-religious mindset.
At the same time, the Reform movement began in Germany and headed in a different direction. The rivalry between rabbis of different persuasions fractured and altered Jewish communities fundamentally.
In the past, if you wanted to abandon Judaism, your only option was to become a Christian or a Muslim. Now, for the first time, there was a third option — embrace a different strand of Judaism. The cohesion that had been forced on the Jewish people since the Roman exile began to fragment.
Secular Judaism is strong and manifest in Israel. On the other hand, the Haredi world has doubled down on its separatism as the only way to combat the attraction of Western civilization.
Today, there are so many other factions and sects that have developed. And what is called Modern or Open Orthodoxy still adheres to the dream of combining two worlds that generated the Haskalah originally.
The Jewish people face constant challenges from the outside and within. Nothing reflects this more clearly than the history of Haskalah. I can only conclude that this division can be regarded as creative, forcing us to cope with different challenges and to examine our own lives and our own relationship with Judaism.
The author is a writer and rabbi based in New York.
Uncategorized
US Intelligence Raises Doubts About Venezuela Leader’s Cooperation
Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez speaks during a press conference, more than a week after the US launched a strike on the country and captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, at Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Jan. 14, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
US intelligence reports have raised doubts about whether interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez will cooperate with the Trump administration by formally cutting ties with US adversaries, four people familiar with the reports said in recent days.
US officials have said publicly they want the interim president to sever relations with close international allies like Iran, China, and Russia, including expelling their diplomats and advisers from Venezuela.
But Rodriguez, whose swearing-in ceremony was attended by representatives of those countries early this month, has yet to publicly announce such a move. She became president after the US captured former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Jan. 3.
The US intelligence reports said it was not clear if she is fully on board with the US strategy in her country, according to the sources, who declined to be identified by name.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled on Jan. 15 to Caracas, where he discussed the country’s political future with Rodriguez. Reuters could not determine if those conversations changed the intelligence agencies’ opinion.
Washington wants to rein in its foes’ influence in the Western hemisphere, including in Venezuela, where Trump seeks to exploit the OPEC nation’s vast oil reserves.
If Rodriguez were to break ties with the US rivals, it would open more opportunity for US investment in Venezuela’s energy sector. But failure to control Rodriguez could undercut Washington’s efforts to direct the country’s interim rulers from afar and avoid a deeper US military role.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Venezuela government did not respond to requests for comment.
Asked for comment, a senior Trump administration official, who declined to be identified, said US President Donald Trump “continues to exert maximum leverage” over Venezuela‘s leaders and “expects this cooperation to continue.”
ABANDON LONGTIME ALLIES?
The CIA has previously assessed that officials loyal to Maduro, including Rodriguez, were best positioned to govern the country following his ouster.
But critics of Trump’s Venezuela strategy have expressed doubts about the wisdom of keeping Maduro’s loyalists in place as the country’s interim leaders. The concerns about Rodriguez’ reliability were present prior to the US military operation, said two sources.
For Venezuela, the US directive means abandoning its closest allies outside the region. Iran has helped Venezuela repair oil refineries while China has taken oil as repayment for debt. Russia has supplied weaponry, including missiles, to Venezuela‘s military.
Trump has also cited communist-led Cuba as another US foe he wants Venezuela to abandon. Havana has provided security and intelligence support while receiving cut-rate Venezuelan oil.
Since Maduro’s removal, Rodriguez, whose deep ties to the oil sector are crucial to keeping the country stable, has taken steps to stay in favor with Washington including releasing political prisoners and authorizing the sale of 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States.
In a speech on Sunday, Rodriguez said she has had “enough” of US intervention. Still, US officials have also held positive calls with her in recent days, according to two of the sources.
The Trump administration does not see an immediate alternative to working with Rodriguez, given it has publicly backed her so strongly, two of the sources said.
But US officials are developing contacts with senior military and security officials in case they decide to change their approach, a source briefed on Venezuela policy said.
MACHADO CONSIDERED A LONGER-TERM OPTION TO RUN VENEZUELA
The recent intelligence reports also found that opposition leader Maria Corina Machado is not currently able to run the country successfully in part because she lacks strong ties to the country’s security services or oil sector, the sources said.
Some observers and Machado’s movement say it won a 2024 election that year by a huge margin, though the state backed a Maduro victory. She remains popular with Venezuelans.
Trump told reporters last week he wanted Machado “involved” in the country’s leadership, without providing details.
One person familiar with the administration’s discussions with Machado said she is well-liked by the White House and is considered a longer-term option for a leadership position in Venezuela.
The separate source briefed on Venezuela policy suggested that for now, Machado could be considered for an advisory role but no firm decision had been made. Representatives for Machado did not respond to a request for comment.
Uncategorized
UN Experts Denounce Switzerland for Sentencing Students Over Anti-Israel Protest Activity
Illustrative: Youths take part in the occupation of a street in front of the building of the Sciences Po University in support of Palestinians in Gaza, during the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Paris, France, April 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes
UN human rights experts said on Tuesday they had protested to Switzerland after a group of students were sentenced for trespassing after taking part in anti-Israel sit-ins at a Swiss-funded university during the war in Gaza.
The students who took part in the protests in May 2024 were opposing the Swiss university ETH Zurich’s partnerships with Israeli universities, the UN experts said.
“Peaceful student activism, on and off campus, is part of students‘ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and must not be criminalized,” the UN experts said, adding that they had written to the Swiss government and the university to raise the issue.
A spokesperson for the Swiss Foreign Ministry confirmed it had received the message and said it would respond in due course.
An ETH Zurich spokesperson said it had received the letter. It said that of the 40 people that were reported for trespassing, 11 were ETH members, including nine students and two employees.
“The claim that the two sit-ins were peaceful and aimed at dialogue does not match our perception,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson also said that the university and the police communicated to the sit-in protesters the potential consequences regarding charges and prosecution for trespassing and gave the demonstrators several deadlines to leave without consequences.
Five students have so far been sentenced for trespassing, resulting in suspended fines of up to 2,700 Swiss francs ($3,516), legal fees of over 2,000 Swiss francs and a criminal conviction on their records which could discourage future prospective employers, the UN experts said.
Ten others who appealed the charges await sentencing and two others were acquitted, they said.
($1 = 0.7679 Swiss francs)