Uncategorized
Reconstructionist Judaism moves to back reparations for African Americans
(JTA) — The congregational arm of Reconstructionist Judaism has endorsed reparations for Black Americans, approving a resolution that calls for “ongoing learning,” “deep reflection” and “teshuvah,” or repentance.
But the resolution approved by Reconstructionist congregations earlier this month does not mention financial compensation for those who have been harmed by American slavery and its lasting effects.
“The goal of this resolution is to establish a moral position around reparations,” said Rabbi Micah Geurin Weiss, whose title is assistant director for thriving communities and tikkun olam specialist at Reconstructing Judaism, the movement’s official name. “We understand that as a religious movement we are uniquely positioned to do so.”
During a Dec. 11 Zoom call, representatives of 47 congregations voted in support of the resolution and 11 abstained. There were no negative votes. Reconstructing Judaism has 95 congregations and recognized havurahs, or groups that meet outside of traditional synagogues, with an estimated 50,000 members.
The vote was a penultimate step in a process that began nearly two years ago, when the movement’s 370-member rabbinical association passed a “statement of resolve on reparations and antiracism.” If approved in January by Reconstructing Judaism’s board of governors, the resolution will serve as a guide for rabbis and congregations, as well as the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the movement’s affiliated enterprises.
Reconstructing Judaism, with which about 1% of American Jews are affiliated, is not the first major Jewish movement in the United States to express support for reparations, seen by advocates as an essential step in moving toward racial equity.
The Union of Reform Judaism passed a resolution at its 2019 conference backing the creation of “a federal commission to study and develop proposals for reparations to redress the historic and continuing effects of slavery and subsequent systemic racial, societal, and economic discrimination against Black Americans.”
Reconstructing Judaism’s resolution calls for the same commission, which was first introduced in Congress in 1989 but has never come to a full vote. The resolution also urges movement congregations to engage in “ongoing learning about systems of oppression and structural racism, and about how these systems have caused, and continue to cause, harm in our communities.” It also urges them to join racial justice initiatives led by people of color, and to take “concrete steps to repair the harm” of racism and injustice. Those “concrete steps” are not specified, nor is a timetable laid out.
Rabbi Deborah Waxman, president and CEO of Reconstructing Judaism, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the resolution and its demands could feel uncomfortable for some.
Related: The case for reparations, according to two Jews living in the first American city to offer them
“For the Jewish people, engaging in this conversation means getting real about doing this work about racial justice, facing that reality rather than using it as a pretext to shy away,” she said. “This is about urging our communities and our movement at large to look at systemic racism really squarely, and for individuals to do their own reckoning and for communities to do their own reckoning.”
It is essential for that reckoning to take place in part because Reconstructing Judaism has a diverse membership, said Rabbi Sandra Lawson, the movement’s director of racial diversity, equity and inclusion.
“The Reconstructionist movement is doing the work of how do we deal with the fact that we have people in our communities whose families have been harmed and continue to be harmed,” said Lawson, who is Black. She added, “The solutions piece is what frightens people, I think.”
Lawson’s first Jewish community was at Congregation Bet Haverim, a Reconstructionist congregation in Atlanta, a city often referred to as the cradle of the civil rights movement.
“Our congregation includes descendants of both the enslaved and their enslavers. But telling the full truth means owning the responsibility we all share,” said Bet Haverim’s rabbi, Mike Rothbaum. “My Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors were racially ‘other’ both in Europe and when they arrived in the U.S., and yet, the developments of the 20th century allowed their descendants — myself included — to access whiteness and its privileges.
“That journey across racial borders reveals the arbitrary nature of race in the U.S.,” Rothbaum added. “It demands that we as Jews talk about it, both publicly and privately. If we can be honest in private, our next step is to publicly stand in solidarity with Black folks in Georgia who continue to face the repercussions of racial injustice — substandard healthcare, mass incarceration, underfunded schools, voter suppression, restricted access to employment and credit.”
—
The post Reconstructionist Judaism moves to back reparations for African Americans appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.