Uncategorized
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries once defended uncle’s antisemitic speech and Louis Farrakhan, report says
(JTA) – Jewish Democrats are backing Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Republicans are calling on him to explain himself, following a report that the Democratic House minority leader defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and an uncle of his who had made antisemitic comments in the 1990s.
The report belies longstanding claims made by Jeffries, a Brooklyn congressman and ally of the pro-Israel lobby, that as a college student at the time, he was only vaguely aware of the controversy surrounding his uncle’s remarks.
Then the chair of the Black Studies Department at the City University of New York, Jeffries’ uncle Leonard Jeffries came under widespread criticism in 1991 for comments in which he suggested there was a Jewish plot to denigrate Black people in movies, as well as the involvement of “rich Jews” in the slave trade.
“Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a financial system of destruction of black people,” Leonard Jeffries said at an arts festival that year. As the controversy snowballed he compared Jews to “dogs” and “skunks” and eventually was forced out of his chairmanship in 1995 after a court battle.
In 2013, when he was first elected to Congress, Hakeem Jeffries told the Wall Street Journal that he had only a “vague recollection” of the controversy and that his parents sought to shield him from it. But a CNN report this week found that Jeffries — who was 21 and in college when the controversy began — defended his uncle in a student newspaper and was a board member of a student group that invited his uncle to give a speech on campus. The opinion piece he wrote also defended Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader with a well-documented history of antisemitic statements, and took aim at Black conservatives.
“Dr. Leonard Jeffries and Minister Louis Farrakhan have come under intense fire,” Hakeem Jeffries wrote at the time. “Where do you think their interests lie? Dr. Jeffries has challenged the existing white supremist educational system and long standing distortion of history. His reward has been a media lynching complete with character assassinations and inflammatory erroneous accusations.”
Contemporary coverage of Leonard Jeffries’ subsequent speech to the Black Student Union at his nephew’s campus suggests that he doubled down on his attacks on Jews. “It was the Jewish community that put itself in the center of the controversy,” he said, according to a report in the local newspaper. “It’s ironic that members of the Jewish community felt compelled to take a position that is antidemocratic and … pro-Nazi in its viciousness.”
In the wake of the CNN report, the Republican Jewish Coalition called on Hakeem Jeffries to explain his “lies” about having been unaware of the controversy surrounding his uncle.
“Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries owes the Jewish community an explanation as to why he lied and attempted to cover up his defense of these revolting antisemites,” the group’s CEO, Matt Brooks, and national chairman, former Sen. Norm Coleman, said in a statement on Friday.
In a statement to CNN, Hakeem Jeffries’ spokeswoman, Christiana Stephenson, reiterated his repudiation of his uncle’s views but did not address why he had previously claimed to only be vaguely aware of the controversy.
“Leader Jeffries has consistently been clear that he does not share the controversial views espoused by his uncle over 30 years ago,” she said.
The political action committee affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee endorsed Jeffries in the most recent cycle, and he was highlighted as an example of AIPAC’s claim that it had close allies in both parties, in the face of complaints from some Democrats that the lobby leans Republican. Jeffries is leading a group of new Democratic representatives later this year on a tour of Israel sponsored by an AIPAC affiliate.
AIPAC declined to comment on the CNN revelations, but Jeffries’ allies are defending him, in part by pointing to his pro-Israel record as a lawmaker.
“Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been an unwavering partner of the Jewish American community and ally of Israel in Congress,” the Jewish Democratic Council of America said in a statement. “We are grateful for his leadership defending democracy, fighting antisemitism and right-wing extremism, and standing with Israel. His long record in Congress on these issues is beyond reproach and we condemn any assertions to the contrary. We are proud to call him a friend.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida congresswoman who is one of the most prominent Jews in Congress as well as a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, also came to Jeffries’ defense.
“As native NYers, Leader @RepJeffries and I became fast, dear friends. I saw how he embodied the Jewish values of tikkun olam (repairing the world) and gemilut hassadim (giving love and kindness),” she wrote on Twitter. “While others foment antisemitism, Hakeem Jeffries always leads in the face of hate.”
—
The post Rep. Hakeem Jeffries once defended uncle’s antisemitic speech and Louis Farrakhan, report says appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel
Something significant is happening between Israel and Syria, and it deserves more attention than it is getting.
With the backing of the United States, Israeli and Syrian officials have agreed to create what they call a “joint fusion mechanism” — a permanent channel for coordination on intelligence, de-escalation, diplomacy and economic matters — during meetings in Paris. It appears to be the beginning of institutionalized contact between two countries that have formally been at war since 1948.
If this process continues, it will count as a genuine foreign-policy success for President Donald Trump’s administration.
To understand how profound that change would be, it is worth recalling the two countries’ shared history.
Israel and Syria — which the U.S. struck with a set of targeted attacks on the Islamic State on Saturday — have fought openly or by proxy for decades. Before 1967, Syrian artillery positions in the Golan Heights regularly shelled Israeli communities in the Hula Valley and around the Sea of Galilee. After Israel captured that region in 1967, the direct shelling stopped, but the conflict did not.
Syria remained formally committed to a state of war; Israel entrenched itself in the Golan Heights; both sides treated the frontier as a potential flashpoint to be managed carefully. After Egypt and Israel made peace in 1979, Syria became Israel’s most dangerous neighboring state.
A 1974 disengagement agreement created a United Nations-monitored buffer zone, which mostly ensured peace along the border, but did not resolve anything fundamental. In Lebanon, Israel and Syria backed opposing forces for years, and their air forces clashed briefly during the 1982 Lebanon War. Later, Iran’s growing role in Syria and Hezbollah’s military buildup added new threats. The Syrian civil war then destroyed basic state capacity and created precisely the kind of militia-rich environment Israel fears along its borders.
Now, with the dictator Bashar al-Assad gone and the former rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa in power, Syria is a broken country trying to stabilize. Sharaa’s past associations, disturbingly, include leadership of jihadist groups that were part of the wartime landscape in Syria. But today he governs a state facing economic collapse, infrastructure ruin and a population that needs jobs and basic services. His incentives are simple and powerful: ensure the survival of his regime, invite foreign investment, and secure relief from isolation and sanctions. Those goals point toward the U.S. and its partners, including Israel.
The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to see new Syrian cooperation with Israel, with the suggestion that progress with Israel will become a gateway to international investment, and to a degree of political acceptance that Syria has lacked for years. Al-Sharaa’s willingness to engage is therefore not a mystery.
Israel’s motivations are also straightforward. After the Gaza war, Israel is facing a severe reputational problem. It is widely viewed abroad as reckless and excessively militarized. The government is under pressure over not only the conduct of the war but also the perception that it has no political strategy and relies almost exclusively on force. A diplomatic track with Syria allows Israel to present a very different picture: that of a country capable of negotiations with ideologically opposed neighbors, de-escalation, and regional cooperation.
There are significant security incentives, too.
Israel wants to limit Iran and Hezbollah’s influence in Syria. It wants a predictable northern border. It wants assurances regarding the Druze population in southern Syria — brethren to the Israeli Druze who are extremely loyal to the state, and who were outraged after a massacre of Syrian Druze followed the installation of al-Sharaa’s regime. It wants to ensure that no armed Syrian groups will tread near the Golan. A coordinated mechanism supervised by the U.S. offers a strong diplomatic way to address these issues.
The U.S. will benefit as well. The Trump team is eager to show that it can deliver lasting diplomatic achievements in the Middle East after the success of the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term. A meaningful shift in Israel–Syria relations would be a very welcome addition, especially as the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in the Gaza war faces an uncertain future.
The main questions now are practical. Can the “joint fusion mechanism” function under pressure? What will happen when there is, almost inevitably, an incident — a drone downed, a militia clash, a cross-border strike? Will the new system effectively lower the temperature, or will it collapse at the first crisis?
Will Iran — facing its own profound internal political crisis — accept a Syria that coordinates with Israel under U.S. supervision, or will it work to undermine al-Sharaa? How will Hezbollah react if Damascus appears to move away from the axis of “resistance” and toward a security understanding with Israel?
How would an Israel-Syria deal impact Lebanon’s moribund efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s military capacity? Al-Sharaa has already helped significantly by ending the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah from Iran through his territory. Might he also actively help with the disarming of the group?
No one should expect a full peace treaty soon. The question of possession of the Golan Heights probably remains a deal-breaker. Public opinion in Syria has been shaped by decades of official hostility to Israel, and Israeli politics is fragmented and volatile.
But diplomatic breakthroughs can confound expectations. They usually begin with mechanisms like this one, involving limited cooperation, routine contact and crisis management.
If this effort helps move the border from a zone of permanent tension to one of managed stability, that alone would be a major shift. It would also send a signal beyond the region: U.S. engagement still matters, and American pressure and incentives can still change behavior.
The post A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Netanyahu Hopes to ‘Taper’ Israel Off US Military Aid in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the press on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, July 8, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview published on Friday that he hopes to “taper off” Israeli dependence on US military aid in the next decade.
Netanyahu has said Israel should not be reliant on foreign military aid but has stopped short of declaring a firm timeline for when Israel would be fully independent from Washington.
“I want to taper off the military within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told The Economist. Asked if that meant a tapering “down to zero,” he said: “Yes.”
Netanyahu said he told President Donald Trump during a recent visit that Israel “very deeply” appreciates “the military aid that America has given us over the years, but here too we’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacities.”
In December, Netanyahu said Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
In 2016, the US and Israeli governments signed a memorandum of understanding for the 10 years through September 2028 that provides $38 billion in military aid, $33 billion in grants to buy military equipment and $5 billion for missile defense systems.
Israeli defense exports rose 13 percent last year, with major contracts signed for Israeli defense technology including its advanced multi-layered aerial defense systems.
US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Israel supporter and close ally of Trump, said on X that “we need not wait ten years” to begin scaling back military aid to Israel.
“The billions in taxpayer dollars that would be saved by expediting the termination of military aid to Israel will and should be plowed back into the US military,” Graham said. “I will be presenting a proposal to Israel and the Trump administration to dramatically expedite the timetable.”
Uncategorized
In Rare Messages from Iran, Protesters ask West for Help, Speak of ‘Very High’ Death Toll
Protests in Tehran. Photo: Iran Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law, via i24 News
i24 News – Speaking to Western media from beyond the nationwide internet blackout imposed by the Islamic regime, Iranian protesters said they needed support amid a brutal crackdown.
“We’re standing up for a revolution, but we need help. Snipers have been stationed behind the Tajrish Arg area [a neighborhood in Tehran],” said a protester in Tehran speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity. He added that “We saw hundreds of bodies.”
Another activist in Tehran spoke of witnessing security forces firing live ammunition at protesters resulting in a “very high” number killed.
On Friday, TIME magazine cited a Tehran doctor speaking on condition of anonymity that just six hospitals in the capital recorded at least 217 killed protesters, “most by live ammunition.”
Speaking to Reuters on Saturday, Setare Ghorbani, a French-Iranian national living in the suburbs of Paris, said that she became ill from worry for her friends inside Iran. She read out one of her friends’ last messages before losing contact: “I saw two government agents and they grabbed people, they fought so much, and I don’t know if they died or not.”