Uncategorized
Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan
(JTA) — Israel’s 75th anniversary was supposed to be a blowout birthday party for its supporters, but that was before the country was convulsed by street protests over the right-wing government’s proposal to overhaul its judiciary. Critics call it an unprecedented threat to Israel’s democracy, and supporters of Israel found themselves conflicted. In synagogues across North America, rabbis found themselves giving “yes, but” sermons: Yes, Israel’s existence is a miracle, but its democracy is fragile and in danger.
One of those sermons was given a week ago Saturday by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, expressing his “dismay” over the government’s actions. Hirsch is the former head of ARZA, the Reform movement’s Zionist organization, and the founder of a new organization, Amplify Israel, meant to promote Zionism among Reform Jews. He is often quoted as an example of a mainstream non-Orthodox rabbi who not only criticizes anti-Zionism on the far left but who insists that his liberal colleagues are not doing enough to defend the Jewish state from its critics.
Many on the Jewish left, meanwhile, say Jewish establishment figures, even liberals like Hirsch, have been too reluctant to call out Israel on, for example, its treatment of the Palestinians — thereby enabling the country’s extremists.
In March, however, he warned that the “Israeli government is tearing Israeli society apart and bringing world Jewry along for the dangerous ride.” That is uncharacteristically strong language from a rabbi whose forthcoming book, “The Lilac Tree: A Rabbi’s Reflections on Love, Courage, and History,” includes a number of essays on the limits of criticizing Israel. When does such criticism give “comfort to left-wing hatred of Israel,” as he writes in his book, and when does failure to criticize Israel appear to condone extremism?
Although the book includes essays on God, Torah, history and antisemitism, in a recent interview we focused on the Israel-Diaspora divide, the role of Israel in the lives of Diaspora Jews and why the synagogue remains the “central Jewish institution.”
The interview was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You gave a sermon earlier this month about the 75th anniversary of Israel’s founding, which is usually a time of celebration in American synagogues, but you also said you were “dismayed” by the “political extremism” and “religious fundamentalism” of the current government. Was that difficult as a pulpit rabbi?
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: The approach is more difficult now with the election of the new government than it has been in all the years of the past. Because we can’t sanitize supremacism, elitism, extremism, fundamentalism, and we’re not going to. Israel is in what’s probably the most serious domestic crisis in the 75-year history of the state. And what happens in Israel affects American Jewry directly. It’s Israeli citizens who elect their representatives, but that’s not the end of the discussion neither for Israelis or for American Jews. At the insistence of both parties, both parties say the relationship is fundamental and critical and it not only entitles but requires Israelis and world Jews to be involved in each other’s affairs.
For American Jewry, in its relationship with Israel, our broadest objective is to sustain that relationship, deepen that relationship, and encourage people to be involved in the affairs in Israel and to go to Israel, spend time in Israel and so forth, and that’s a difficult thing to do and at the same time be critical.
American Jews have been demonstrating here in solidarity with the Israelis who have been protesting the recent judicial overhaul proposals in Israel. Is that a place for liberal American Jews to make their voices heard on what happens in Israel?
I would like to believe that if I were living in Israel, I would be at every single one of those demonstrations on Saturday night, but I don’t participate in demonstrations here because the context of our world and how we operate is different from in Israel when an Israeli citizen goes out and marches on Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv. It’s presumed that they’re Zionists and they’re speaking to their own government. I’m not critical of other people who reach a different perspective in the United States, but for me, our context is different. Even if we say the identical words in Tel Aviv or on West 68th Street, they’re perceived in a different way and they operate in a different context.
What then is the appropriate way for American Jews to express themselves if they are critical of an action by the Israeli government?
My strongest guidance is don’t disengage, don’t turn your back, double down, be more supportive of those who support your worldview and are fighting for it in Israel. Polls seem to suggest that the large majority of Israelis are opposed to these reforms being proposed. Double down on those who are supportive of our worldview.
You lament in your book that the connections to Israel are weakening among world Jewry, especially among Jewish liberals.
The liberal part of the Jewish world is where I am and where the people I serve are by and large, and where at least 80% of American Jewry resides. It’s a difficult process because we’re operating here in a context of weakening relationship: a rapidly increasing emphasis on universal values, what we sometimes call tikkun olam [social justice], and not as a reflection of Jewish particularism, but often at the expense of Jewish particularism.
There is a counter-argument, however, which you describe in your book: “some left-wing Jewish activists contend that alienation from Israel, especially among the younger generations, is a result of the failures of the American Jewish establishment” — that is, by not doing more to express their concerns about the dangers of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, for example, the establishment alienated young liberal Jews. You’re skeptical of that argument. Tell me why.
Fundamentally I believe that identification with Israel is a reflection of identity. If you have a strong Jewish identity, the tendency is to have a strong connection with the state of Israel and to believe that the Jewish state is an important component of your Jewish identity. I think that surveys bear that out. No doubt the Palestinian question will have an impact on the relationship between American Jews in Israel as long as it’s not resolved, it will be an outstanding irritant because it raises moral dilemmas that should disturb every thinking and caring Jew. And I’ve been active in trying to oppose ultra-Orthodox coercion in Israel. But fundamentally, while these certainly are components putting pressure on the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, in particular among the elites of the American Jewish leadership, for the majority of American Jews, the relationship with Israel is a reflection of their relationship with Judaism. And if that relationship is weak and weakening, as day follows night, the relationship with Israel will weaken as well.
But what about the criticism that has come from, let’s say, deep within the tent? I am thinking of the American rabbinical students who in 2021 issued a public letter accusing Israel of apartheid and calling on American Jewish communities to hold Israel accountable for the “violent suppression of human rights.” They were certainly engaged Jews, and they might say that they were warning the establishment about the kinds of right-wing tendencies in Israel that you and others in the establishment are criticizing now.
Almost every time I speak about Israel and those who are critical of Israel, I hold that the concept of criticism is central to Jewish tradition. Judaism unfolds through an ongoing process of disputation, disagreement, argumentation, and debate. I’m a pluralist, both politically as well as intellectually.
In response to your question, I would say two things. First of all, I distinguish between those who are Zionist, pro-Israel, active Jews with a strong Jewish identity who criticize this or that policy of the Israeli government, and between those who are anti-Zionists, because anti-Zionism asserts that the Jewish people has no right to a Jewish state, at least in that part of the world. And that inevitably leads to anti-Jewish feelings and very often to antisemitism.
When it came to the students, I didn’t respond at all because I was a student once too, and there are views that I hold today that I didn’t hold when I was a student. Their original article was published in the Forward, if I’m not mistaken, and it generated some debate in all the liberal seminaries. I didn’t respond at all until it became a huge, multi-thousand word piece in The New York Times. Once it left the internal Jewish scene, it seemed to me that I had an obligation to respond. Not that I believe that they’re anti-Zionist — I do not. I didn’t put them in the BDS camp [of those who support the boycott of Israel]. I just simply criticized them.
Hundreds of Jews protest the proposed Israeli court reform outside the Israeli consulate in New York City on Feb. 21, 2023. (Gili Getz)
You signed a letter with other rabbis noting that the students’ petition came during Israel’s war with Hamas that May, writing that “those who aspire to be future leaders of the Jewish people must possess and model empathy for their brothers and sisters in Israel, especially when they are attacked by a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State.”
My main point was that the essence of the Jewish condition is that all Jews feel responsible one for the another — Kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh. And that relationship starts with emotions. It starts with a feeling of belongingness to the Jewish people, and a feeling of concern for our people who are attacked in the Jewish state. My criticism was based, in the middle of a war, on expressing compassion, support for our people who are under indiscriminate and terrorist assault. I uphold that and even especially in retrospect two years later, why anyone would consider that to be offensive in any way is still beyond me.
You were executive director of ARZA, the Reform Zionist organization, and you write in your book that Israel “is the primary source of our people’s collective energy — the engine for the recreation and restoration of the national home and the national spirit of the Jewish people.” A number of your essays put Israel at the center of the present-day Jewish story. You are a rabbi in New York City. So what’s the role or function of the Diaspora?
Our existence in the Diaspora needs no justification. For practically all of the last 2,000 years, Jewish life has existed in the Diaspora. It’s only for the last 75 years and if you count the beginning of the Zionist movement, the last 125 years or so that Jews have begun en masse to live in the land of Israel. Much of the values of what we call now Judaism was developed in the Diaspora. Moreover, the American Jewish community is the strongest, most influential, most glorious of all the Jewish Diasporas in Jewish history.
And yet, the only place in the Jewish world where the Jewish community is growing is in Israel. More Jewish children now live in Israel than all the other places in the world combined. The central value that powers the sustainability, viability and continuity of the Jewish people is peoplehood. It’s not the values that have sustained the Jewish people in the Diaspora and over the last 2,000 years, which was Torah or God, what we would call religion. I’m a rabbi. I believe in the centrality of God, Torah and religion to sustain Jewish identity. But in the 21st century, Israel is the most eloquent concept of the value of Jewish peoplehood. And therefore, I do not believe that there is enough energy, enough power, enough sustainability in the classical concept of Judaism to sustain continuity in the Diaspora. The concept of Jewish peoplehood is the most powerful way that we can sustain Jewish continuity in the 21st century.
But doesn’t that negate the importance of American Jewry?
In my view, it augments the sustainability of American Jewry. If American Jews disengage from Israel, and from the concept of Jewish peoplehood, and also don’t consider religion to be at the center of their existence, then what’s left? Now there’s a lot of activity, for example, on tikkun olam, which is a part of Jewish tradition. But tikkun olam in Judaism always was a blend between Jewish particularism and universalism — concern for humanity at large but rooted in the concept of Jewish peoplehood. But very often now, tikkun olam in the Diaspora is practiced not as a part of the concept of Jewish particularism but, as I said before, at the expense of Jewish particularism. That will not be enough to sustain Jewish communities going into the 21st century.
I want to ask about the health of the American synagogue as an institution. Considering your concern about the waning centrality of Torah and God in people’s lives — especially among the non-Orthodox — do you feel optimistic about it as an institution? Does it have to change?
I’ve believed since the beginning of my career that there’s no substitute in the Diaspora for the synagogue as the central Jewish institution. We harm ourselves when we underemphasize the central role of the synagogue. Any issue that is being done by one of the hundreds of Jewish agencies that we’ve created rests on our ability as a community to produce Jews into the next generation. And what are those institutions that produce that are most responsible for the production of Jewish continuity? Synagogues, day schools and summer camps, and of the three synagogues are by far the most important for the following reasons: First, we’re the only institution that defines ourselves as and whose purpose is what we call cradle to grave. Second, for most American Jews, if they end up in any institution at all it will be a synagogue. Far fewer American Jews will receive a day school education and or go to Jewish summer camps. That should have ramifications across the board for American Jewish policy, including how we budget Jewish institutions. We should be focusing many, many more resources on these three institutions, and at the core of that is the institution of the synagogue.
—
The post Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Qatari Money Corrupting Georgetown University, New Report Says
Students, faculty, and others at Georgetown University on March 23, 2025. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Georgetown University’s suspect relationship with the country of Qatar is the subject of another report which raises concerns about what the Hamas-friendly monarchy is getting in exchange for the hundreds of millions of dollars it spends on the institution for ostensibly philanthropic reasons.
Titled, “Qatar’s Multidimensional Takeover of Georgetown University,” the new report, by the Middle East Forum, describes how Qatar has allegedly exploited and manipulated Georgetown since 2005 by hooking the school on money that buys influence, promotes Islamism, and degrades the curricula of one of the most recognized names in American higher education.
“The unchecked funds provided by Qatar demonstrate how foreign countries can shape scholarship, faculty recruitment, and teaching in our universities to reflect their preferences,” the report says. “At Georgetown, courses and research show growing ideological drift toward post-colonial scholarship, anti-Western critiques, and anti-Israel advocacy, with some faculty engaged in political activism related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or anti-Western interventionism.”
Georgetown is hardly the only school to receive Qatari money. Indeed, Qatar is the single largest foreign source of funding to American colleges and universities, according to a newly launched public database from the US Department of Education that reveals the scope of overseas influence in US higher education.
The federal dashboard shows Qatar has provided $6.6 billion in gifts and contracts to US universities, more than any other foreign government or entity. Of the schools that received Qatari money, Cornell University topped the list with $2.3 billion, followed by Carnegie Mellon University ($1 billion), Texas A&M University ($992.8 million), and Georgetown ($971.1 million).
“Qatar has proved highly adept at compromising individuals and institutions with cold hard cash,” MEF Campus Watch director Winfield Myers said in a statement. “But with Georgetown, it found a recipient already eager to do Doha’s bidding to advance Islamist goals at home and abroad. It was a natural fit.”
MEF executive director Gregg Roman added, “Georgetown is Ground Zero for foreign influence peddling in American higher education. It has not only abandoned its mission to educate future generations of diplomat and scholars to represent US interests at home and abroad, but is working actively to undermine the foundations of American government and policy. No doubt they’re eager to get the money, but at base this evinces an ideological hostility to Western civilization.”
Georgetown’s ties to Qatar’s have aroused suspicion before.
In June, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism Policy (ISGAP) released a report titled, “Foreign Infiltration: Georgetown University, Qatar, and the Muslim Brotherhood” a 132-page document which revealed dozens of examples of ways in which Georgetown’s interests are allegedly conflicted, having been divided between its foreign benefactors, the country in which it was founded in 1789, and even its Catholic heritage.
According to the report, the trouble began with Washington, DC-based Georgetown’s decision to establish a campus on Qatari soil in 2005, the GU-Q located in the country’s Doha Metropolitan Area. The campus has “become a feeder school for the Qatari bureaucracy,” the report explained, enabling a government that has disappeared dissidents, imprisoned sexual minorities without due process, and facilitated the spread of radical jihadist ideologies.
In the US, meanwhile, Georgetown’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies and the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding “minimize the threat of Islamist extremism” while priming students to be amenable to the claims of the anti-Zionist movement, according to ISGAP. The ideological force behind this pedagogy is the Muslim Brotherhood, to which the Qatari government has supplied logistic and financial support.
Another recent Middle East Forum (MEF) report raised concerns about Northwestern University’s Qatar campus (NU-Q), accusing it of having undermined the school’s mission to foster academic excellence by functioning as a “pipeline” for the next generation of a foreign monarchy’s leadership class.
MEF found that 19 percent of NU-Q graduates carry the surnames of “either the Al-Thani family or other elite Qatari families.” Additionally, graduates from the House of Thani, the country’s royal family, are overrepresented in NU-Q by a factor of five despite being only 2 percent of the population.
The report also said that NU-Q uses its immense wealth, which includes a whopping $700 million in funding from Qatar, to influence the Evanston campus in Illinois, Northwestern’s flagship institution. “Endowed chairs, faculty exchanges, and governance links” reportedly purchase opinions which are palatable to the Qatari elite instead of investments in new NU-Q campus facilities and programs.
“The financial flows raise concerns about whether the Doha campus is a facade and whether the funding is in effect underwriting access and institutional influence rather than solely supporting the overseas campus,” the report continued. “The pattern at NU-Q mirrors the dynamic uncovered by the US Department of Justice in the 2019 Varsity Blues Case, where federal prosecutors exposed how a small group of privileged families exploited side-doors into elite universities through fraudulent athletic recruiting and exam manipulation. While the tactics differ, the structural similarity is clear: insiders repeatedly securing access that ordinary applicants could never obtain.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
France’s National Assembly Advances Bill to Combat Modern-Day Antisemitism
Procession arrives at Place des Terreaux with a banner reading, “Against Antisemitism, for the Republic,” during the march against antisemitism, in Lyon, France, June 25, 2024. Photo: Romain Costaseca / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
France’s lower house of parliament has advanced legislation targeting what it describes as “renewed forms of antisemitism,” including anti-Zionism and Holocaust minimization, drawing applause from Jewish leaders and sharp criticism from opponents who claim it could undermine free expression.
On Tuesday, the National Assembly’s Law Committee narrowly approved, by an 18-16 vote, a bill — introduced by Jewish MP Caroline Yadan — aimed at combating modern-day antisemitism and Israel-hatred amid growing hostility toward Jews and Israelis across France.
“Strong and decisive measures to send a clear message to our fellow citizens: France unconditionally protects everyone on its soil, guided by the force of the law, steadfast principles, and loyalty to its history,” Yadan wrote in a post on X.
Fière et émue de l’ADOPTION
, aujourd’hui en Commission des lois, de ma proposition de loi visant à lutter contre les formes renouvelées de l’antisémitisme.
Renforcement du délit d’apologie du terrorisme ;
— Caroline Yadan (@CarolineYADAN) January 20, 2026
With support coming largely from the governing majority and the far right and opposition from the left, the bill is now set to advance to the full assembly for further debate.
The new legislation seeks to strengthen existing law by punishing both explicit and implicit praise of antisemitism, equating praise of perpetrators with praise of antisemitic acts, and treating the downplaying or trivializing of terrorism as a form of support.
It would also reinforce laws against glorifying terrorism, establish a new offense for inciting the destruction of a state, and crack down on the trivialization and denial of the Holocaust.
“Today, anti-Jewish hatred in our country is fueled by an obsessive hatred of Israel, which is regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized,” Yadan said. This hatred, she continued, is “disguised under the mask of progressivism and human rights.”
“Antisemitism is never an isolated phenomenon,” the French lawmaker said. “It is always a warning. It is the first symptom of a violence that, sooner or later, spreads, expands, and strikes more broadly.”
“When it flourishes, it is our collective responsibility that falters. That is why we must act,” she added.
Debate over the bill comes as France continues to experience a historic surge in antisemitic incidents across the country following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Yonathan Arfi, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) — the main representative body of French Jews — welcomed the legislation, highlighting the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression while ensuring that hate speech threatening public safety is properly regulated.
“CRIF welcomes this initial adoption and underscores the importance of fighting hatred and discrimination within the Republic, whether antisemitic, racist, or in any other form,” the statement read
On the other hand, opponents of the bill warn that it could threaten free speech by blurring the distinction between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, potentially criminalizing ambiguous statements, irony, slogans, or political commentary.
“Turning public speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a penalized arena risks deepening divisions rather than easing them,” Socialist MP Marietta Karamanli said during the parliamentary debate.
La France Insoumise MP Gabrielle Cathala, representing the far-left political party, also opposed the legislation, arguing that it does little to effectively combat antisemitism.
“It does not protect Jews. It protects a policy – that of the State of Israel and its criminal leaders – a policy of apartheid, a colonial enterprise, and genocide of the Palestinian people,” she said.
According to experts and civil rights groups, anti-Israel animus has motivated an increasingly significant percentage of antisemitic incidents, especially following Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, which resulted in the biggest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
Uncategorized
US Congressional Challenger Says Incumbent Ritchie Torres ‘Bought, Controlled’ by Zionists
Jose Vega, a candidate for US Congress in New York’s 15th District, giving an interview. Photo: Screenshot
Jose Vega, a self-described journalist vying to unseat US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), claimed in a new campaign video that the incumbent was “bought and controlled” by Zionists while appearing alongside an anti-Israel social media personality.
On Tuesday, a video circulated around social media featuring Vega, who is running for US Congress as a Democrat/Independent, speaking with anti-Zionist pundit Erik Warsaw. The video featured images juxtaposing “Zio Rich Neighborhoods” and “Everyone Else Neighborhoods.”
“Zio” is an antisemitic slur brought into prominence by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. While the term, derived from “Zionist,” has generally been deployed by white supremacists and other far-right extremists, it has more recently been used as well by anti-Israel activists on the progressive far left to refer to Jews in a derogatory manner.
“The Bronx is one of the poorest districts in America, but also has some of the richest Zionists millionaires in America, too,” Warsaw said in the video, standing next to Vega.
Nodding in agreement, Vega added, “Rich people like to live in areas where they can buy the politicians easily, like Ritchie Torres, who is bought and controlled by Zionist influencers and millionaires who all live in Riverdale.”
Riverdale, a leafy and affluent neighborhood nestled in the northwest portion of the Bronx, maintains a significant Jewish population. Vega implied that Torres only won because of low voter turnout from the heavily black and Latino areas of New York’s 15th Congressional District.
Torres responded to the video by lambasting his opponent and noting that Warsaw has praised podcaster Nick Fuentes, an avowed antisemite and Holocaust denier.
“My opposition sees antisemitism not as a tragedy but as a strategy,” Torres posted on X.
“One of my opponents appears in a despicably antisemitic video with Erik Warsaw, who once lionized Nick Fuentes — a notorious Holocaust denier — as a ‘hero.’ In that video, my opponent demonizes the Jewish residents,” the congressman continued.
My opposition sees antisemitism not as a tragedy but as a strategy.
One of my opponents appears in a despicably antisemitic video with Erik Warsaw, who once lionized Nick Fuentes—a notorious Holocaust denier—as a “hero.” In that video, my opponent demonizes the Jewish residents… pic.twitter.com/KVZ9CCPGyU
— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) January 21, 2026
Warsaw’s Instagram account features an array of videos making broadside attacks against Israel and invoking various antisemitic narratives. In one video, Warsaw promoted the “red ribbon campaign” — a direct parallel to the Israeli yellow ribbon campaign calling for the release of hostages kidnapped by Hamas — which accused the Jewish state of harboring 9,100 Palestinian “hostages” in prison. In another interview with political activist Diane Sare, Warsaw asked about the legitimacy of dual citizenship. In that clip, Warsaw sequenced a series of images accusing Israeli-Americans of having “dual loyalty,” invoking an antisemitic trope.
Vega, a progressive political organizer, entered the race in hopes of toppling Torres, an outspoken defender of Israel. Vega has thus far aligned himself with the far-left, anti-Israel arm of the Democratic party. On his social media profiles, Vega displays a Palestinian flag emoji next to his name.
Vega defines himself as an anti-establishment insurgent, seeking to upend the foreign policy status quo in Congress. On his website, Vega bemoans previous US foreign policy ventures in the Middle East, arguing that American intervention has made the region worse off. He claims that the plight of Gaza, which he has declared a so-called “genocide,” an extension of failed and immoral US foreign policy.
“The genocide taking place in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is perhaps the most satanic manifestation of our foreign policy today, which regards Palestinians as just another roadblock to attaining strategic dominance in an area,” he wrote.
Torres, 37, a Bronx native who is both Afro-Latino and openly gay, has not shied away from supporting Israel. He has long framed his support for the Jewish state as part of a broader belief in liberal democracy and human rights and is known in Washington as one of the few progressive Democrats willing to challenge the party’s left flank on Middle East issues.
Beyond the Middle East, allies of Torres argue that since his election in 2020, he has secured federal funding for affordable housing, local infrastructure, and small-business relief while being instrumental in directing pandemic recovery aid to neighborhoods hardest hit by COVID-19.
New York’s 15th District, encompassing much of the South Bronx, remains overwhelmingly Democratic and majority black and Hispanic. The congressional district, one of the poorest in the nation, has a child poverty rate of 37 percent, according to the US Census Bureau, the highest in the country.