Uncategorized
The White House intends to fight antisemitism. That starts with a sensible definition.
(JTA) — In the coming days, the White House is expected to release what President Joe Biden has called “the first-ever U.S. national strategy to counter antisemitism.” It will likely include calls to action by Congress, state and local governments, as well as guidance for technology and other companies, civil society and faith leaders.
In preparation, the Biden administration sought input from a wide range of Jewish community members and stakeholders, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which I lead. In addition to this engagement with the forthcoming report on antisemitism, I will travel to Cordoba, Spain, next month for the United Nations antisemitism summit, and then to the European Parliament in Brussels with parliamentarians from across the globe convening against antisemitism.
In both settings, the message of world Jewry remains unchanged: Adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, known as IHRA, is an essential and seminal tool to combat anti-Jewish hate
Support for adopting the IHRA definition is significant, as seen in a letter last week from over 175 Jewish community organizations around the world, a letter last week from over 600 rabbis from all four Jewish streams and dozens of letters from American Jewish organizations, all making the important case for adoption of the IHRA definition. Members of Congress have weighed in. Mayors have weighed in. Across the board, a strong and clear consensus of support exists for the definition.
The IHRA definition is the most authoritative and internationally accepted definition of antisemitism. Forty-one nations, as well as hundreds of local governments, academic institutions, NGOs and other entities have formally adopted in different ways the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Over half — 31 — American states also adopted it.
RELATED: The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and why people are fighting over it, explained (2021)
Since the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of State has utilized and promoted the IHRA definition (and previously, its similarly-phrased predecessor from the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia). Both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt are leaders in advocating for its usage around the globe. The U.S. Department of Education also employs the IHRA definition as a tool in determining antisemitism discrimination in Title VI discrimination cases.
The IHRA definition continues to gain significant attention and support among governments and civil society actors. Fifty-one of the 53 member organizations of the Conference of Presidents adopted the definition – a clear recognition from every corner of a disparate Jewish community that we are unified when it comes to applauding the comprehensive approach it provides for labeling and addressing antisemitism.
One particular aspect of the IHRA definition that draws attention — and criticism from some groups — is its treatment of the relationship between anti-Israel bias and antisemitism. For too long, definitions of antisemitism failed to account for how anti-Zionism often serves as a cover for antisemitism. Forms of antisemitism that are masked as “anti-Zionism” and that deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination are among those most frequently encountered by many Jews today, whether or not they are Zionists, as documented in surveys by the Anti-Defamation League and by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.
RELATED: A manufactured ‘mainstream’ wants the White House to define antisemitism on its own flawed terms (Opinion)
The IHRA definition addresses the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while not conflating legitimate criticism with actual antisemitism. Critics fail to identify actual instances where the IHRA definition suppressed free speech. In fact, over the last 20 weeks, as debates raged around the world over Israel’s proposed judicial reform — with hundreds of thousands of Israelis of all political stripes expressing virulent criticism of the Israeli government’s proposed overhaul — I have yet to hear one individual accuse the critics of being antisemitic. Despite the fact that the IHRA definition is so ubiquitous, legitimate speech that is critical of Israeli government policy is not censored. When put to the test, the IHRA definition does not do what its critics say it does.
We at the Conference of Presidents steadily campaign for states, localities, international governments and organizations to adopt the IHRA definition. The Biden administration seems poised to reassert their ongoing endorsement of the IHRA definition, pushing back yet again against those who distort the nature of the definition’s treatment of legitimate criticism of Israel governmental policies.
In a time when antisemitism in the United States has become all too often lethal, this would mean a vital and praiseworthy evolution of policy.
—
The post The White House intends to fight antisemitism. That starts with a sensible definition. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Erdogan Names Prosecutor Who Led Opposition Crackdown as Turkey Justice Minister
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a ceremony for the handover of new vehicles to the gendarmerie and police forces in Istanbul, Turkey, Nov. 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Murad Sezer
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan appointed as his new justice minister Akin Gurlek, the Istanbul chief prosecutor behind the unprecedented crackdown on the main opposition party, drawing fierce criticism and defiance from the party on Wednesday.
Since his appointment as chief prosecutor in 2024, Gurlek has overseen a wave of arrests and indictments targeting the Republican People’s Party (CHP), including investigations into the Istanbul mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, Erdogan‘s main political rival who has been jailed since his arrest in March last year.
In a 4,000-page indictment last November, Gurlek demanded a prison sentence of more than 2,000 years for Imamoglu for allegedly leading a vast corruption network, sparking Turkey‘s largest street protests in a decade.
The first hearing in that case, accusing hundreds of defendants linked to the Istanbul municipality of corruption and bribery, will be held next month.
A scuffle broke out in Turkey‘s parliament ahead of Gurlek’s swearing-in after opposition lawmakers protested against his appointment.
Main opposition CHP deputies gathered around the speaker’s podium to block Gurlek, calling his nomination “an attack on the rule of law.” TV footage showed lawmakers pushing and throwing punches and ruling AK Party lawmakers forming a protective ring around Gurlek as he read his oath.
FIRST CABINET SHUFFLE SINCE 2023 VOTE
In the first cabinet shuffle since mid-2023 elections, Gurlek replaced Yilmaz Tunc, who was first elected as a member of parliament in 2007.
The Official Gazette announcement also said that Erdogan had appointed Erzurum provincial governor Mustafa Ciftci as interior minister, replacing Ali Yerlikaya, who was the Istanbul governor before his appointment as minister.
A reason for the shuffle was not given.
Hundreds of party members and elected officials have been detained in Gurlek’s crackdown, which has been criticized as anti-democratic and politicized by opposition parties, rights groups and some foreign leaders – claims the government denies, saying the judiciary is independent.
CHP leader Ozgur Ozel said Gurlek’s cabinet appointment continued a “judicial coup attempt” while he was prosecutor and amounted to the latest step in a major attack on his party.
“We will not surrender… They cannot stop our march to power,” Ozel told reporters at a memorial ceremony for a former party leader, adding that there was no fair political competition left.
Uncategorized
France to Increase Visas for Iranian Seeking Refuge Amid Crackdown, Minister Says
French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Noel Barrot holds a press conference at the Pine Residence, the official residence of the French ambassador to Lebanon, in Beirut, Lebanon, Feb. 6, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
France will increase the number of visas for Iranians seeking asylum as a result of the recent crackdown by Iranian authorities, Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Wednesday.
Speaking in parliament, Barrot said Paris wanted to support the Iranian people by any means possible.
“In particular by welcoming opponents persecuted by the regime who are seeking asylum and refuge in France. We will increase our humanitarian visas for asylum purposes for these individuals whom we must protect,” he said.
Uncategorized
How Social Media Got Hamas Casualty Figures Wrong
A Palestinian man points a weapon in the air after it was announced that Israel and Hamas agreed on the first phase of a Gaza ceasefire, in the central Gaza Strip, October 9. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
As the Israel-Hamas ceasefire continues to hold, many analysts have begun examining available data to better understand Hamas’ casualties throughout the war. This is no easy feat, considering Hamas has consistently lied and inflated the civilian casualty figures. The reality of urban warfare provides other challenges for the IDF to count every eliminated terrorist.
Varying numbers regarding Hamas’ casualty figures have been recently touted on social media. But many of them lack sources, or a breakdown of the statistics.
Conversely, some analysts, such as HonestReporting board member Salo Aizenberg, have done an exceptional job at critically analyzing the available casualty numbers.
The Hamas-run Ministry of Health has reported over 70,000 deaths in Gaza, including civilians.
But closer examination of these numbers displays that it also includes an estimated 22,000-25,000 Hamas fighters, around 11,000 natural deaths, and 4,000 casualties caused by internal fighting amongst Gazans. With 1,000 deaths attributed to reporting errors, this suggests that 25,000 casualties were terrorists, and 36,000 were civilians.
One suggestion that has gained momentum on social media suggests that the actual number of Hamas casualties is double this number, at 50,000 combatant deaths.
However, pre-war estimates by the IDF suggest that Hamas had 35,000 combatants. US estimates believe that Hamas recruited 10,000-15,000 new combatants throughout the war. This means that if the IDF had killed 50,000 Hamas terrorists, there would be virtually no Hamas terrorists left — an analysis that is unfortunately not accurate.
Hamas had an estimated 50K combatants during the war (35K pre-war + 15K recruits). It is thus impossible that 50K have been killed. The best estimate remains about 25K combatants from all groups killed. The ME24 report misinterpreted what Hamas announced. https://t.co/LID34TpYAP
— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) February 9, 2026
The claim of 50,000 eliminated Hamas terrorists is based on an announcement by the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Development of the start of a new program that would provide NIS 500 to the widows of Gazans killed in the war.
By February 8, 2026, payments had been made to 19,306 widows, totaling NIS 9.653 million or over three million US dollars.
This claim, which is about a new Hamas-run Ministry of Social Development program is untrue on multiple levels — on figures, characterization, and comparison with the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry’s death toll. Short
to explain: https://t.co/KrAYiFvvBK
— Gabriel Epstein (@GabrielEpsteinX) February 8, 2026
The Ministry of Social Development further stated that 50,000 widowed families were set to receive these benefits, implying that more than widowed wives would be receiving the payments. This is likely where some analysts misinterpreted Hamas’ statement and took it to mean that for every Hamas terrorist, one wife would receive a payment. However, this payment is not exclusively for the wives of terrorists, and not every Hamas combatant would have been married by the time of his death.
What these numbers do suggest, however, is that claims of unreported casualties are likely to be false. The ability to receive a payment for reporting a death would presumably encourage many Gazans to submit claims of being widowed.
Since the early days of the war, news outlets and influencers on social media have blindly repeated Hamas’ claim that the majority of casualties were women and children. The claim implied that the IDF was specifically targeting both groups.
Beyond this claim not being true — men of combat age account for around 46.7% of total casualties — data from the World Health Organization (WHO) displays that 603,000 children under the age of 10 were vaccinated at the beginning of 2025. This number exceeds the pre-war population of that age group, indicating that the overall population of young children has remained stable or even grown despite the war.
The WHO—not Hamas or Israel—delivered one of the most decisive Gaza war data points. It reported 603,000 children under 10 vaccinated in early 2025—MORE than the pre-war population of that age group! Every claim of excessive or undercounted fatalities collapses with this data. pic.twitter.com/HmfRJuY1zT
— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) January 21, 2026
With births being the same as, if not higher than, pre-war numbers, the claims of underreported casualties and casualties disproportionately targeting children fall apart. Despite this data being publicly available and offering important information about the war’s human toll, it has received no attention in media coverage, allowing the misleading child casualty narrative to persist.
These two case studies of terrorist casualty statistics and the reported number of children under 10 during the war highlight the need to analyze all available data with scrutiny. It is not enough to rely on unverified claims about casualty figures. Instead, accurate conclusions must be based on transparent analysis conducted by credible analysts who rely on publicly available data, verifiable sources, and clear methodology. Only through rigorous examination can casualty figures be properly understood, rather than simply repeated without question.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.