Uncategorized
What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel
(JTA) — Eric Alterman, born in 1960, says the view of Israel he absorbed growing up in a Jewish family in suburban Scarsdale, New York, was decidedly one-sided.
“I went on this nerdy presidential classroom thing when I was in high school,” he recalls, “and some Christian kid from the South raised his hand and said to the rabbi, ‘I don’t get it, if the Jews could have a state, why can’t the Palestinians?’ And I was like, ‘How dare you?’”
Alterman would go on to attend Cornell University, where he wrote his honors thesis on Israel, Vietnam and neoconservatism; spend a semester abroad at Tel Aviv University; study Israeli military history while earning his master’s degree in international relations at Yale, and research a dissertation on American liberalism and the founding of Israel as a doctoral student at Stanford.
Although he frequently writes about Israel as a contributing writer at the Nation and the American Prospect, Alterman is best known for his liberal analysis of the media and U.S. politics. He’s written 11 previous books, including one on Bruce Springsteen.
Yet he never stopped thinking about the widening gap between the idealized Israel of his youth and the reality of its relations with the Palestinians, its Arab neighbors and the West. Even when Israel’s revisionist historians were uncovering evidence of massacres and forced expulsions of Palestinians during the War of Independence, and Israeli politicians and intellectuals began asking why, indeed, the Palestinians didn’t deserve a state of their own, he saw that such discussions were considered blasphemous in most American Jewish circles.
Alterman, now a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, explores that gap in his latest book, “We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel.” The book surveys U.S.-Israel relations, but with a focus on the ways defending Israel have shaped public discourse. It’s a book about arguments: within the administrations of 14 presidents, between Washington and Jerusalem, and mostly among Jews themselves.
Earlier this month we spoke about how the pro-Isael lobby became a powerful political force, the Jewish organizations and pundits who fight to limit the range of debate over Israel, and what he thinks is the high price American Jews have paid for tying their identities so closely to Israel.
“I try to take on shibboleths that in the past have shut down conversation and take them apart and sympathetically show the complexity of the actual situation that lies beneath — so that [criticism and disagreement] over Israel can be understood rather than whisked away by changing the subject, or what-aboutism, or by demonizing the person who is raising them,” said Alterman.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Let me start by congratulating you: It’s the first book about U.S.-Israel relations with a chapter named after a Bruce Springsteen album: “Working on a Dream.”
Eric Alterman: Nobody else has caught that. But it’s not about U.S.-Israel relations. It’s the first book about the debate over Israel in the United States. There’s a million books on U.S.-Israel relations.
So let’s define that more narrowly. The title reminds me of the United Jewish Appeal slogan over the years, “We Are One,” which was about American Jewish solidarity. So who is the “we” in your title, “We Are Not One”?
There are three or four different meanings. The “we” in this book are obviously the United States and Israel. An awful lot of people argue that the United States and Israel have identical interests in the world and that’s crazy, because Israel is this tiny little country in the Middle East and we’re a global superpower thousands of miles away. So obviously, we’re going to have differences. Number two, American Jews and Israeli Jews are very different people. They have very different life experiences. And they see things quite differently as evidenced by the political split between them. The title also refers specifically just to Americans, because we can’t even discuss most things anymore. The pro-Israel community, such as it ever was, is enormously split and it’s split in angry ways.
Much of your book is about what happens to American Jews when the idealized portrait of Israel’s founding and its presumed blamelessness in its actions toward the Palestinians comes up against reality. In that context, tell me a little about your choice to devote a chapter to the Leon Uris novel “Exodus,” an extremely sanitized version of Israel’s founding, and the 1960 movie based on it.
The influence of “Exodus” is something I didn’t understand until I wrote the book. It’s crazy, because Leon Uris was this egomaniac who wrote kind of a shitty book and said that he wanted to add a new chapter to the Bible, and he kind of succeeded. I was born in 1960. When I was growing up in suburban New York, every single family had “Exodus” on their shelves. When the movie came out Israelis understood this. They said, “We can just shut down our public relations office now.” And from the standpoint of reality the movie is worse than the book because it has Nazis — the Arabs in the book are working with Nazism. Uris didn’t have the nerve to do that. So the book created this idealized Israel and this idea of [Palestinians as] evil, subhuman Nazis.
What most Americans don’t understand, or choose not to understand, is that before the 1940s most Jews were anti-Zionist, or non-Zionist. This changed in the 1940s, when, as a result in part of the Holocaust, and the reaction to that, and the triumph of Zionists, they became intensely pro-Zionist, leading up to the creation of Israel. But after that, they kind of forgot about Israel. One might have given their children JNF boxes to carry on Halloween instead of UNICEF boxes, or maybe they paid to plant trees. But Israel doesn’t show up in the American Jewish Committee’s 1966 annual report until page 35 or 36, and Nathan Glazer’s 1957 book “American Judaism” says that the creation of the Jewish state has had “remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry.”
With the events of 1967, Uris’ idealized notion of Israel came together with this terrible fear of a second Holocaust, and the terror and shame and frightening nature of that combined to transform American Judaism overnight to an enormous degree.
You are referring to Israel’s lightning victory in the Six-Day War, which even non-religious Jews saw as a kind of miracle, and redemption two decades after the Holocaust. And that transformation, you argue, put defense of Israel, combined with Holocaust consciousness, at the center of Jewish identity.
More than just the center: It basically comprised almost all of it, for many secular Jews. I quote the neoconservative Irving Kristol in the book saying in 1976 that “the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel” was 100% of what Judaism means.
Which in turn led to a the tremendous pro-Israel lobbying efforts, political activism and punditry.
The budgets of American Jewish organizations overnight went from social services and liberal social justice causes to defense of Israel. And rabbis were replaced at the center of public discourse by the heads of these organizations — most of whom had no religious training or knowledge of history or Judaism.
Joe Biden, then vice president, speaks at the AIPAC 2016 Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 20, 2016.
(Molly Riley/AFP via Getty Images)
One distinction you repeatedly make is between what most Jews believe compared to the Jewish organizations that claim to represent them. Surveys show the rank and file is consistently more liberal on Israel and less hawkish than the big organizations — a gap that showed up markedly around the Iraq War and the Iran nuclear deal.
Right. The big mistake that so many in the media make is that they go to the heads of these organizations who pretend to speak for American Jews when they don’t speak for American Jews. They speak for their boards and their donors.
The shift to Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel coincides with an era in which there is seldom daylight between what Israel wants and what the United States wants or agrees to — often to the frustration of presidents. You are critical of those who exaggerate the pro-Israel lobby’s influence — folks like Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, authors of the 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — but, at the same time, you write, referring to the Israel debate in America, about “the continued stranglehold that money, power, organizational structure, and clearly defined paths to personal career advancement continue to hold over the shape of foreign policy.” How will you respond to critics who will say your book is trafficking in the myth of Jewish power and its conspiracy-minded hold over American policy?
The short answer is, that’s why I wrote a 500-page book — basically, for two reasons: One, everything is incredibly complicated. And some of those complications are consistent with antisemitic myths, and therefore they have to be teased out and broken down in such a way that you’re telling the truth rather than portraying the myth.
If you say things without context, they sound antisemitic. I say that yes, Jews are very powerful in the media and many use that power on or about Israel. But I think if you lay out the examples that I use, if you look at them and examine them, I don’t see how you can conclude otherwise. The people I describe often say that about themselves — how much power and influence they yield.
Secondly, I’ve always found it just about impossible to discuss Israel with anyone, because you have to share exactly the same assumptions with that person. And if you don’t, then they take it personally, or you’re an antisemite, or, at best, you’re insufficiently sensitive to how important antisemitism is. And if you describe ways in which American Jews act in ways that are consistent with antisemitic myth, it has a way of shutting down the conversation.
Undoubtedly there’s some criticism of Israel that is motivated by antisemitism, but there’s an awful lot of reasons to be critical of Israel, particularly if you are a Palestinian or care about Palestinians. This accusation [antisemitism] has shut down the discourse and part of my hopes in demonstrating the complexities of this history is to open this up.
So let me ask about your own stake in this. Your educational background and relationship to Israel are similar in many ways to the writers and thinkers in your book who tolerate no criticism of Israel. I don’t know if you call yourself a Zionist, but you have some connection to Israel, and you’re also willing to tolerate critiques of Israel. What’s the difference between you and some of the other people who went on the same journey?
For the longest time I was comfortable with the words “liberal Zionist,” but I don’t think they have any meaning anymore. I don’t think it’s possible to be a liberal Zionist — you have to choose. Israel is the only putatively democratic country that prefers Trump to either Obama or Biden, and it’s not even close. And young Israelis are moving further in that direction and young American Jews are moving further in the opposite direction.
So you ask me if I am a liberal Zionist. I don’t think the word “Zionist” is useful at all anymore, because Israel is a country and it’s not going anywhere. I sometimes call myself an anti-anti-Zionist, because anti-Zionism is dumb. I’m very anti-BDS. If I thought [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement] could end occupation, I would support it, even though the idea of boycotting Jews puts a bad taste in my mouth. But the theory behind BDS apparently, and I’ve spent a lot of time on this, is that the world will force Israel to give up its identity and turn the country over to its enemies. It’s inconceivable that Israel would do that and inconceivable the United States would pressure them to do that. So BDS is entirely performative. It’s more of a political fashion statement than anything else.
And to me, it speaks to the failure of Palestinian politics throughout history. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians and their bad politics because it’s based on two problems. One is that they have never been able to see the future very well. So they should have agreed in 1921 and 1937, or whenever they would have had the majority and they were being given a country by the British. They should have taken the lousy offer from Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000. I kind of get it because they have so many competing constituencies, and it’s impossible to satisfy all of them at the same time. I understand that. It’s hard to imagine a Palestinian politician who could say yes, and if you look at Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, in both cases, it’s hard to imagine making peace with them.
I read that in your book, and my first thought was, well, isn’t that basically just confirming what the pro-Israel right has always said — that Israel has no partner for peace? So maybe the best it can do is maintain a status quo that assures some security for Israel and a workable something for the Palestinians.
Well, number one I hold Israel significantly responsible for the conditions under which that has developed and that they can change those. And number two, that’s no excuse for the way Palestinians are treated, either in the occupation or in Israel. So yes, I agree. There’s no one to make peace with today, but there are many steps Israel could take that could vastly improve the lives of the Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and inside Israel. And there are a lot of steps they could take that could build confidence for a future that could weaken Hamas, that could strengthen the Palestinian Authority, so that one day peace would be possible. But they do the opposite.
An Israel supporter at a New York rally to tell the United Nations “no more anti-Israel documents or resolutions,” Jan. 12, 2017. (Don Emmert/AFP via Getty Images)
You talk about funding of Israel studies and Jewish studies departments as a reaction against fears of a pro-Palestinian takeover of academia. At the same time, you write how Palestinian supporters “succeeded in colonizing Middle East studies departments, student faculty organizations, and far-left political organizations.” Why does that matter in the long run if, as you also write, nothing’s really going to change American policy on Israel?
I gave a talk before the book came out at Tel Aviv University and someone asked me that question. I said, You care about these transformations for two reasons. One, you really will be all alone in the world. You’ll have the support of conservative [Evangelical] Christians who are in many respects antisemitic and are using you for their own purposes. So if you lose American Jews, you will be existentially alone in a way you’re not now and that strikes me as very unpleasant.
I do think that the quote-unquote pro-Israel community has a stranglehold on American politics that I can’t see changing anytime soon, and I think the change in the Democratic Party [that it will turn more pro-Palestinian] is very much exaggerated by both sides for their own reasons.
That being said, the people who are being trained now to be in the State Department and the National Security Council and the Defense Department and the think tanks and the places where the intellectual foundation of U.S. policy is made are learning something very different from what you and I learned in college. Right now, there’s no such thing as an influential Palestinian lobby in this country. There’s no pushing back. There’s no percentage for anyone opposing Israel who has a career interest in the future. That will change, and the whole shaping of the discourse will change and that will change the relationship between the United States and Israel. It’s not going to happen anytime soon, but it’s definitely going to happen.
As Jews in this country have remained largely liberal, Israel appears to be getting more illiberal, as we’ve seen with a new government that is more right-wing than any previously. And Israel has become more of a divisive element among Jews than a unifying force. As this gap appears to be widening, do you have any real hope for changing the discourse?
No, I don’t have any hopes for that. I don’t have anything optimistic to say about Israel. I think, politically speaking, from the standpoint of American Jews, everything is going in the wrong direction. But by demonstrating just how different Israeli Jews are than American Jews, and how little Israeli Jews care what American Jews think, I do think that it presents an opportunity for American Jews to think about what it means to be an American Jew in the Diaspora. Roughly half of the Jews in the world live in the United States. And since 1967 American Jews have defined themselves vicariously through Israeli Jews and taking pride in Israel. They expressed their identities by defending Israel and attacking the media when the media didn’t defend Israel.
Meanwhile, American Jews hardly ever go to synagogue. According to Pew, 20% of American Jews regularly attend synagogue and half of them are Orthodox, who are 10% of the community. What brought me back into Judaism was studying Torah. And hardly any American Jews are ever exposed to that.
So I think there’s an opportunity to reimagine Diaspora Jewry now that the Israel story doesn’t work, and it’s clear that it doesn’t work. Young American Jews are leaving or voting with their feet. They’re walking away. Israel-centric Judaism is in part responsible, although it’s not the whole story. Intermarriage is a big part of the story. The de-religionization of all groups is part of the story. But personally, I don’t see what a liberal American Jew would see in a Judaism that defines itself as it has for the past 50 years as defending Israel and remembering the Holocaust.
—
The post What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Alex Bores’ supporters disagree on Israel. They agree on him.
(New York Jewish Week) — Alex Bores, who’s running to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler in Congress, is threading a very delicate needle.
On the one hand, Bores, a two-term New York State Assembly member from the Upper East Side, has garnered support from a number of Jewish leaders and political moderates who tout his support for Israel. He marches annually in the city’s Israel Day Parade and has resisted growing calls for Democratic politicians to support conditioning military aid to Israel.
At the same time, he’s being backed by a number of the left-wing groups and individuals calling for those very conditions.
Those two camps seldom coexist on a single candidate’s list of endorsements, especially as Israel has become a major wedge issue this midterm election cycle. But Bores, who has put a promise to regulate artificial intelligence at the center of his campaign for New York’s 12th Congressional District, has managed to maintain the coalition.
“You could make a sitcom,” said Cameron Kasky, a former candidate in the race who’s now backing Bores, referring to what he called the “Boalition.” “If you put 12 Alex Bores endorsers in a mansion together and showed up with a reality TV crew, you could make the most must-watch television in the entire world.”
Scroll through the “Endorsements” page on Bores’ campaign website and you’ll find Chi Osse, the democratic socialist City Council member who’s called for divesting city pension funds from Israel bonds, just a couple rows down from Carolyn Maloney, the former Upper East Side representative who was a staunch supporter of Israel in Congress.
Progressive groups such as Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution and PSC-CUNY, the City University of New York’s staff-faculty union, are backing the same candidate who drew the support of ActJew, which supports more centrist candidates and calls itself “a response to a political and social landscape that normalizes antisemitic and anti-Israel activity and rhetoric.” (ActJew endorsed both Bores and Micah Lasher in the race.)
Bores’ endorsers include some of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s political allies, such as failed City Council candidate Lindsey Boylan, and vocal critics of the mayor including Fabien Levy, a Jewish spokesperson for Mamdani’s predecessor, Eric Adams.
“I can’t imagine the Bores campaign hasn’t occasionally looked at each other and been like, ‘What is happening right now?’” Kasky said.
So how is Bores pulling it off?
For progressive groups, the answer lies, at least in part, in Bores’ work on AI.
“He put forward the country’s strongest regulation of the AI industry to protect Americans from those who want no rules and only care about unfettered power and profit,” wrote Our Revolution’s executive director, Joseph Geevarghese, in an endorsement announcement. Geevarghese was referring to the RAISE Act, a state law that Bores introduced to impart transparency and safety regulations on AI models.
As an elected official, Bores is no political outsider, though the 35-year-old’s background in the tech industry differentiates him from fellow frontrunner Lasher, who’s spent decades working for politicians such as Nadler, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor.
Bores’ resume includes a nearly five-year stint at the tech company Palantir, starting as a data scientist in 2014 and working his way up to become the U.S. government lead. That gig has complicated how some progressives see Bores, given Palantir’s work with ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that Bores himself has called to abolish. He has repeatedly said that he quit Palantir over its contract with ICE back in 2019, and that he chose “principle over my career and millions of dollars.”
Pundits such as center-left commentator Matthew Yglesias — who has also joined the Bores coalition — say there is a “unique value” to him winning because of his promise to enforce AI regulations and the message that it would send to the anti-regulation PACs that have been spending against him. Yglesias added that Lasher, too, would be “an above-average House member.”
But in a race with little daylight between the two frontrunners — particularly regarding the U.S.-Israel relationship — Bores’ AI focus is setting him apart. And rather than sit out the race due to differences on Israel, a number of progressive groups are backing him anyways.
“I think progressives see something in Alex that is a testament to a resolve he’s going to bring,” said Kasky, who has advocated for policies such as an arms embargo on Israel. “And I think that that is enough for progressive groups to cede ground on the issue of Israel-Palestine, and frankly the issue of Israel and the Middle East region as a whole, which is getting increasingly severe.”
The makeup of the district itself plays a role as well: As one of the country’s most heavily Jewish districts, NY-12 is seen as less hospitable than other deep-blue districts for a “Squad”-type insurgent candidate. John F. Kennedy’s grandson Jack Schlossberg is the only major candidate who calls for conditioning aid and blocking weapons sales to Israel, but he has dropped in recent polls as he’s faced questions over his lack of experience.
Bores, Lasher and Schlossberg are all listed as “primary approved” candidates by J Street, the liberal pro-Israel organization.
Bores has confirmed that Our Revolution asked him about Israel and gave him its endorsement despite not being aligned on the issue. During a candidate forum in May, he said that “we need to make it acceptable for there to be people in progressive spaces that still believe in the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself.”
Michael Miller, who was CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York for 36 years, is endorsing Bores and wrote in a Facebook post that Bores is a “steadfast supporter of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
In an interview, Miller — whom Bores named in a recent Temple Emanu-El forum as a Jewish American that he admires — said he felt assured that Bores’ support from groups such as Our Revolution had mostly to do with his AI work.
“The fact that he’s receiving support from a coalition that includes decidedly left-wing supporters doesn’t trouble me for as long as the issues of central concern to me — antisemitism and support for Israel — are those issues where he has given his support, and with which he has identified,” Miller said.
Miller added that he believes Bores’ Jewish family — his wife, Darya (who recently appeared in a campaign ad), and son, Charlie, are both Jewish — plays a “large role in how he thinks about matters of concern to the Jewish community.”
A number of Jewish celebrities in the district have embraced Bores. The Oscar-winning songwriter Benj Pasek and Jewish cookbook author Jake Cohen posted photos on social media showing them at a Bores event in a private home that included a conversation with journalist Laurie Segall about AI.
On the same day, Miller and more than 20 other local Jewish leaders and elected officials signed a letter endorsing Bores. The letter emphasized his record of combating antisemitism, pointing to measures such as securing funds for Holocaust survivor programs, funding security for synagogues and Jewish institutions, and organizing trips for students to Jewish museums.
But for some Jewish groups, Bores’ support from left-wing groups critical of Israel has given them pause.
Moshe Spern, a board member of the group ActJew, called on Bores to drop his PSC-CUNY endorsement back in March, saying the union is “consistently calling for divestments from Israel” and has “downplayed and ignored Jewish students/faculty experiences since 10/7.” PSC-CUNY revoked a pro-BDS resolution against Israel in February 2025, after its initial passage sparked backlash, including from Hochul and CUNY itself. Spern told JTA he pushed for the group to rescind its endorsement, but was outvoted.
Bores replied to Spern’s tweet, writing that “every major candidate pursued” PSC-CUNY’s endorsement, and that his endorsement interview focused on funding public education and regulating AI. Bores added that he has “spoken out against antisemitic incidents on campuses (including CUNY specifically) and will continue to do so.”
Meanwhile, some progressive groups have refrained from endorsing Bores because of his pro-Israel politics.
“It’s pretty much a non-starter for us to endorse someone who wouldn’t sign on to the Block the Bombs,” said Sophie Ellman-Golan, director of communications of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, referring to the Block the Bombs to Israel Act that would prohibit certain weapons sales to the country. She added that Bores also voted for a statewide “buffer zone” bill meant to curb protests outside houses of worship, which Lasher introduced, and which JFREJ has vehemently opposed throughout the year.
According to the latest polling data, despite Bores’ greater support from the left, there’s been little difference in the number of voters who are responding to each candidate.
“You go into any Jewish WhatsApp chat — I see this as an Upper East Side resident myself — and there’s no consensus,” said Michael Harris, ActJew’s CEO. “The consensus is Bores or Lasher.”
The post Alex Bores’ supporters disagree on Israel. They agree on him. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Organizers of London Israeli real estate fair apologize after West Bank properties surface despite denials
(JTA) — Organizers of the Great Israeli Real Estate Event held in London on Sunday have apologized amid revelations that the event showcased offerings in the West Bank, contradicting their assurances that it would not.
The owner of a real estate agency that had a booth at the event, meanwhile, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that she had obscured the name of a city in the West Bank from a poster but also passed “two flyers under the table” to attendees who expressed interest in properties in contested areas of Jerusalem.
Ahead of the event, the organizers along with the synagogue that hosted the event and the Board of Deputies of British Jews publicly rejected claims by pro-Palestinian activists that properties beyond Israel’s internationally recognized borders would be promoted.
They had faced sharp pressure over the claims from dozens of British lawmakers and the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and had to find a new space after the venue that was initially set to host the event pulled out abruptly.
Following a protest outside the synagogue where the event took place, the Board of Deputies’ acting president, Adam Cohen, said the event organizers had “publicly refuted claims that it was marketing real estate over the Green Line” separating Israel from the West Bank and alleged that the claims were being used to justify antisemitism.
The “false pretenses seem to be little more than an excuse to harass and intimidate members of the Jewish community,” he said.
The Board of Deputies declined to comment on the subsequent revelations that West Bank properties were advertised at the event.
But the organizers, who have staged similar events in the United States, issued a statement to the U.K.’s Jewish News that both apologized for mentions of East Jerusalem settlements in a brochure distributed at the event and rejected the idea that British Jews should face constraints in where they are offered property.
“We would like to re-emphasise that the venue made it clear to us that we were not in any way to promote the sale of Israeli real estate over the Green Line, and all participating vendors agreed to abide by that requirement,” the statement said. “At the same time, we believe it is outrageous that in this day and age, anyone would seek to deny British Jews the right to purchase property anywhere in the world, whether in Paris, New York, or Israel.”
The statement also described social media claims that “stolen Palestinian land” was being sold at the event. “These allegations are simply untrue. No one at the event promoted or spoke about properties in the ‘disputed territories’, such as Givat Zeev or Kfar Eldad,” two East Jerusalem settlements, the statement continued. “Their mention in the event brochure was made in error for which we apologise.”
The revelations came after attendees photographed flyers promoting West Bank settlements and posted them on social media.
The Guardian reported that it had obtained brochures from the event advertising properties not just in Givat Ze’ev and Kfar Eldad but also in Ma’ale Adumim and Teneh Omarim in the West Bank and Ramat Eshkol and Givat Hamatos in East Jerusalem.
Guy Zilberman, a member of the pro-Palestinian group Jewish Anti-Zionist Action, posted a video showing footage from inside the event where he received brochures from companies selling homes in several of those locations. He said a salesman “directly offered us properties in ‘Judea and Samaria,’” the Israeli term for the West Bank.
The footage showed Zilberman then revealing himself in a conference room and denouncing the event while exhorting attendees in Hebrew not to steal, before being removed by security.
REVEALED: Jewish activists @JAZA_UK have shown us material from inside an Israeli property event in London yesterday, which shows that illegal settlements on Palestinian land were on sale in the UK.
Activists gained access to the event, spoke to numerous developers about the… pic.twitter.com/WsJ1hC1GlZ
— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) June 16, 2026
An unnamed member of Jewish Anti-Zionist Action told Sky News, “I visited Tivuch Shelly’s stall and was given a leaflet advertising properties in Ma’ale Adumim, which is an illegal West Bank settlement.”
The locations cited highlight the complexity of Israel’s geography — and the pressures facing those trying to sell property in the region.
The U.K. considers expansions of Israeli settlements as a violation of international law, posing potential legal challenges to efforts to sell homes there. The United States does not consider the settlements illegal, making real estate events there less vulnerable to legal scrutiny even as they have drawn fierce protests.
Settlements that are part of the municipality of Jerusalem, such as Ramat Eshkol and Givat Hamatos, pose another wrinkle. While Israel recognizes that the West Bank is disputed territory, it does not consider any part of Jerusalem as such. East Jerusalem was incorporated into the State in1980, and under Israeli law both West and East Jerusalem form the state’s complete and undivided capital.
Ma’ale Adumim, meanwhile, is a city of approximately 40,000 that is located in the West Bank and has long been seen as likely to remain under Israeli control if a Palestinian state is created through negotiations in the future.
Tivuch Shelly’s owner and founder, Shelly Levine, told JTA in a phone interview that her company never actively promoted properties in Ma’ale Adumim at the event. She said the words “Ma’ale Adumim” were covered up with tape on their booth.
But she said they gave out “two flyers under the table” with Ma’ale Adumim properties because the company had received emails in advance of the event from people who said they were specifically looking for properties in that area. She said she did not recall the names of the people but said she had handed over the brochures “in a bag and we told them they were not allowed to take them out or look at them in this building because we are not selling Ma’ale Adumim at this event.”
Levine said she now believes those emails were “a setup” to trick her into sharing incriminating material that could be handed to the media.
Unless people went to Tivuch Shelly’s website, Levine said, “Nobody would know that we advertise in Ma’ale Adumim. We did not break our word to the event organizers; we posted no brochures, put nothing out on our tables.”
Even before the revelations, the lead-up to the event had been fraught for weeks, with the original venue pulling out of hosting less than 48 hours before Edgware Synagogue agreed to host it. And while the venue remained secret until less than 24 hours before the event, almost 1,000 demonstrators showed up outside the synagogue — from both the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel camps.
Despite police being deployed to the scene to keep the groups separate, 14 people were arrested, including seven pro-Israel and six pro-Palestinian supporters, for offenses including ncluding violent disorder, assault and public-order offenses.
More than 100 members of parliament and peers wrote to Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper ahead of the event, calling on her to halt the event because selling properties in the West Bank is a violation of international law.
On Tuesday, Cooper told members of Parliament that the government had asked a national regulator to look into complaints connected to both the advertising of the event and promotional material.
“We have asked the authority to urgently look into the matter and reassure us that, if there is any evidence of the advertising or promotion of property in illegal settlements at that event or any others, it will uphold the law, regulations and guidance that apply,” Cooper said in response to a question from a local lawmaker about why the government had allowed the Great Israeli Real Estate Event to go on.
“It is extremely important that those standards are met in the UK, and that is exactly why we have raised the matter so seriously with the Advertising Standards Authority,” she continued.
That was not enough for Zack Polanski, the anti-Zionist Jewish leader of the Green Party, who sent a letter later on Tuesday to Khan demanding action, including from London’s police force.
“This needs to be escalated to the Metropolitan Police Service immediately,” Polanski wrote. “Anything less fails to reflect the seriousness of the situation.”
The post Organizers of London Israeli real estate fair apologize after West Bank properties surface despite denials appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Far-right YouTuber raises nearly $20K for Cornell student who said he was ‘not interested in working for a jew’
(JTA) — A far-right extremist YouTuber who has said he wants to see “another Hitler” has raised more than $19,000 for a Cornell University student who told a potential employer that he was “not interested in working for a jew.”
The message was written by 19-year-old Austin Franco, a member of Cornell’s class of 2028, during his application process for an internship at a software company owned by two Jewish brothers, Gabe and Aiden Einhorn. The message, which Franco sent via the job application platform Handshake, went viral last week after Gabe Einhorn posted it on X.
“This kid applied to our job on handshake, we accepted him, and then he responded this,” Einhorn tweeted. “He probably knows nothing about Jews accept [sic] for what they tell him in college and on social media. Sad world.”
Einhorn’s tweet initially included a screenshot showing Franco’s name, but a minute after posting, he edited his tweet to obscure the name. (X allows users to view prior versions of edited posts.)
Franco drew more attention to himself the next day when he responded to Einhorn to explain his comment.
“I was stating why I was not interested after you had asked to interview 3 times,” Franco replied. “I found out you were Jewish after the fact. My experiences with Jews have not been pleasant, both in person and online. This is not to say I havent had positive experiences, but on the aggregate that is not the case.”
Alluding to the criticism that he had received, he continued, “The reactions by your community only serves to further prove my point.” Efforts by JTA to reach Franco were unsuccessful.
Franco’s comments have triggered a bias investigation by Cornell. They have also been widely condemned by antisemitism watchdogs, the university and government officials — some of whom suggested that his comments should prevent him from being hired anywhere.
Leo Terrell, chair of the Department of Justice’s task force to combat antisemitism, posted dozens of times about the incident from his personal account, including one post urging the public to make Franco “permanently unemployable.”
But in antisemitic corners of the internet, Franco is emerging as a heroic figure, someone seen as willing to speak truth to power and say publicly what many believe about Jews.
“They’re treating him like a hero,” Gabe Einhorn told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an interview. “There’s these main players with millions of followers across their accounts that their job, literally all they do, is post about antisemitic stuff,” he added. “They’re kind of leading the charge there, so they’re just picking him up and dragging him along with him.”
The support Franco has elicited includes the crowdfunding page created by Miles Routledge, the far-right English YouTuber known as “Lord Miles” who last year said he hoped to see “another Hitler” by 2039. Routledge has also encouraged his followers to leave negative reviews on the Einhorns’ parents’ business page.
“jews are doxxing this man and trying to ruin his career,” Routledge wrote in the post sharing the fundraiser. (Doxxing is the intentional publication of personal or identifying information about a person on the internet.) He added, “I cannot let that happen.”
Comments on the donation page, which had raised more than $19,000 against a goal of $100,000 as of Wednesday morning range from “keep up the good work” to “We must separate ourselves from the Jew and his deceitfulness and every other disgusting trait they are born with, and forge a destiny decided by US without THEM.”
In another tweet about the fundraiser, Routledge wrote, “I just raised $10k for antisemitism.”
GiveSendGo is a Christian crowdfunding website that the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism says has collected funds “operated by or for extremists and their causes.”
The company said in a statement to JTA that it opposes antisemitism but had determined the Franco campaign was permissible under its rules.
“At GiveSendGo, we do not condone antisemitism, racism, discrimination, hate speech, or violence of any kind,” a spokesperson for the platform said in a written comment to JTA. “While we understand the concerns that have been raised regarding the fundraiser you referenced, the fundraiser itself does not violate our Terms of Service, which focus on activity and behavior within our platform.”
The spokesperson added, “GiveSendGo is not a place of judgment but a place of generosity, where people can choose how they wish to respond.”
The frenzy around the situation embroiled a different Austin Franco, a Dallas attorney who tweeted that he had received criticism aimed at the Cornell student. “To make matters worse, the undergraduate looks just enough like me to be confusing,” he said in a statement on X, which was accompanied by a video.
“My social media (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn) and law firm email address are being blown up by people understandably angry at this other Austin Franco. None of the posts cross any legal lines, but unfortunately there have been comments and emails talking about me, my firm, my parents, etc,” the attorney tweeted. In the video, he said, “We do not condone or support any of the views this Austin Franco holds.”
Meanwhile, at Cornell, where classes have ended for the summer, a formal investigation into the Handshake incident is in the works, the university told its student newspaper on Saturday. The incident was referred to the university’s Office of Civil Rights, where it will be investigated according to university policy, a spokesperson for Cornell University told JTA in a statement on Monday.
“Cornell condemns antisemitism and all forms of hatred and discrimination in the strongest possible terms,” the spokesperson said. “The university is steadfastly committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment for every member of our community.”
Franco told the Cornell Daily Sun he learned that the Einhorn brothers were Jewish based on their “first and last name, LinkedIn, and physiognomy.” Physiognomy is the pseudoscience of determining certain behaviors or traits about a person due to their facial characteristics and is largely considered to be a form of scientific racism.
“Unfortunately it’s his First Amendment right to be bigoted,” said Menachem Rosensaft, an attorney and adjunct law professor at Cornell who has advocated against antisemitism there, about Franco. “I wouldn’t be surprised to find him on Tucker Carlson or a similar program, and being made a hero of the antisemitic far right.”
Indeed, Franco has also drawn support beyond Routledge, including from figures who argued that he was facing outsized approbation because he targeted Jews.
The Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist Ian Carroll shared his story and repeated his sentiments about Jews.
And the journalist and Israel critic Glenn Greenwald suggested that he believed Franco’s comments were relatively tame. “As I said, people with powerful platforms say things — right here on X — infinitely worse than what this 19-year-old said in that email,” he wrote. “Yet they face no consequences — let alone DOJ threats of retributions — because their target was different.”
Gabe Einhorn said he also believed Franco’s case was being handled differently from how it would have been had Franco made a bigoted comment to someone from another group — but to a different effect.
“Somehow when it comes to Jewish people, it’s become a trend that if you hate Jews, you get rewarded, you get paid,” he told JTA. “People support you and got your back for you hating Jews.”
In an interview with Fox News Monday, Aiden Einhorn said it was his first instance of antisemitism in the workplace.
“But as a college student, I’ve seen it on campus, in the classroom,” he said. “So it wasn’t such a surprise to me. But in our work experience, yeah, it was the first time.”
The post Far-right YouTuber raises nearly $20K for Cornell student who said he was ‘not interested in working for a jew’ appeared first on The Forward.
