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
France, Spain Signal Support to Blacklist Iran’s IRGC as EU Moves Closer Toward Terrorist Designation
Commanders and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps meet with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran, Iran, Aug. 17, 2023. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The European Union could soon label Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, after France and Spain signaled a shift in support amid mounting international outrage over the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on anti-government protests and shocking reports of widespread civilian deaths.
As two of the largest EU member states previously to oppose blacklisting the IRGC, France and Spain could tip the balance and pave the way for the designation, as the regime’s brutal suppression of dissent at home and support for terrorist operations abroad continues.
On Wednesday, a day before EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss the issue, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced that France will back the move to blacklist the IRGC, saying the repression of peaceful protesters must not go unanswered and praising their courage in the face of what he described as “blind violence.”
“France will support the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations,” he posted on X.
After reversing its long-standing opposition to the move, France also urged Iran to free detained protesters, halt executions, restore digital access, and permit the UN Human Rights Council to investigate alleged abuses.
Multiple media outlets also reported that the Spanish government is expected to back the EU’s move to blacklist the IRGC, aligning with France in breaking its previous opposition.
The United States, Canada, and Australia have already designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, while Germany and the Netherlands have repeatedly called on the EU to do the same.
Some European countries, however, have been more cautious, fearing such a move could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, which could impact negotiations to release citizens held in Iranian prisons.
The EU has already sanctioned the IRGC for human rights abuses but not terrorism.
Labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization would not only extend existing EU sanctions, including asset freezes, funding bans, and travel restrictions on its members, but also activate additional legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would severely limit its operations across Europe.
Earlier this week, Italy also reversed its earlier hesitation and signaled support for the measure after new reports exposed the scale of Iran’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protests — a move that sparked diplomatic tensions, with the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoning the Italian ambassador.
According to local media, Iranian authorities warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the IRGC, calling upon Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran.”
Tajani said the Iranian regime’s bloody crackdown on anti-government protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X. “I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
As international scrutiny over the regime grows, new estimates show that thousands have been killed by Iranian security forces during an unprecedented crackdown on nationwide protests earlier this month, far surpassing previous death tolls.
Two senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
The Iranian regime has previously reported an official death toll of 3,117. But new evidence suggests the true number is far higher, raising fears among activists and world leaders of crimes against humanity.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,858 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
Established after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC wields significant power in the country, controlling large sectors of the economy and armed forces, overseeing Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs, and coordinating closely with the regime’s terrorist proxies in the region.
Unlike the regular armed forces, the IRGC is a parallel military body charged with protecting Iran’s authoritarian regime, ensuring its so-called Islamist revolution is protected within the country and can be exported abroad.
Uncategorized
Petition Calls for US Investigation Into Immigration Status of Daughter of Former Iranian President
Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, right, and his daughter, Leila Khatami. Photo: Screenshot
A petition circulating online that has garnered tens of thousands of signatures is calling on US authorities to investigate the immigration status of Leila Khatami, the daughter of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, arguing that relatives of senior figures tied to Iran’s ruling establishment should not benefit from life in the United States while Iranians at home face repression.
The petition, launched by an anonymous activist identifying as an “Iranian Patriot,” urges the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review Khatami’s residency or visa status and to consider revocation and deportation if any legal grounds exist.
“This is not personal revenge. This is justice,” states the petition, which as of this writing has 84,919 verified signatures. “You cannot chant ‘Death to America’ through your political system while your own family enjoys safety, stability, and prosperity in America.”
Mohammad Khatami served as Iran’s president from 1997 to 2005 and has been described as a reformist figure within the Islamic Republic’s political system. Despite his reformist reputation, however, critics note that the Iranian state remained responsible for widespread human rights abuses at home and support for terrorist proxies abroad during his time in office.
Under Iran’s authoritarian, Islamist system, the Guardian Council, a 12-member body composed of clerics and jurists appointed either directly or indirectly by the supreme leader, bars any candidate from running for office not considered acceptable by the regime.
According to publicly available information cited in the petition, Leila Khatami, born in 1976, has pursued an academic career in the United States and has reportedly worked as a mathematics professor at Union College in New York. The petition argues that her presence in the US exemplifies a broader pattern of children of senior Iranian officials living in Western democracies while ordinary Iranians face repression at home.
Human rights activists have long documented abuses by the Islamic Republic, including the use of torture, suppression of protests, and severe restrictions on political freedoms.
Over the past few weeks, however, the Iranian regime has gone to unprecedented lengths to crush nationwide anti-government protests with a bloody crackdown. More than 30,000 people may have been killed by security forces earlier this month, according to new estimates that far exceed earlier death tolls.
Senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that the scale of the killings and executions has overwhelmed the state’s capacity to dispose of the dead, saying that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
Aligned with the Ministry of Health’s new figures, Iran International reported that security forces killed over 36,500 Iranians during the Jan. 8–9 nationwide crackdown, marking the deadliest two-day massacre of protesters in modern history. The news outlet cited newly obtained classified documents, field reports, and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,858 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
The Iranian regime has reported an official death toll of 3,117.
The nationwide protests, which began with a shopkeepers’ strike in Tehran on Dec. 28, initially reflected public anger over the soaring cost of living, a deepening economic crisis, and the rial — Iran’s currency — plummeting to record lows amid renewed economic sanctions, with annual inflation only getting worse.
However, the demonstrations quickly swelled into a broader anti-government movement calling for the fall of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and even a broader collapse of the country’s Islamist, authoritarian system.
The online petition does not allege that Leila Khatami herself has committed crimes in the United States. Instead, it argues that allowing family members of senior Iranian political figures to live in the US undermines accountability and sends the wrong message amid ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran.
The campaign reflects growing anger within segments of the Iranian diaspora, particularly after the latest protests in Iran were met with deadly force. Activists argue that pressure should extend beyond sanctions on Iranian officials to include scrutiny of their family members living abroad.
The petition also comes on the heels of Emory University terminating Dr. Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, the daughter of Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The termination came after US Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) argued that her presence posed national security and patient trust concerns.
The US Department of the Treasury this month sanctioned her father for his role in coordinating the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protests throughout the country. According to the Treasury, Larijani publicly called on security forces to use force against demonstrators demanding basic rights, and his actions are tied to thousands of deaths and injuries.
The Algemeiner has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment for this story.
Uncategorized
Federal building with murals by Jewish artists at risk of sale, demolition
(JTA) — A federal building in Washington D.C. known for its murals crafted by important Jewish artists is at risk of demolition.
Now, activists are calling on New York City’s Jewish Museum for support to prevent the sale — and possible destruction — of the Wilbur J. Cohen Building.
The Jewish Museum recently concluded a retrospective of one artist whose work appears in the building, Ben Shahn.
In a letter to Jewish Museum leadership, artist-activists asked for support, citing President Donald Trump’s previous destruction of artistic landmarks as a real estate developer in New York City and a broader, nationwide record of preservation failures in the past.
“The United States has a woeful record of respecting, preserving, and restoring its public art, especially compared with older and less wealthy countries,” the letter said. It added, “We’d like to ask you to join in calling for a halt to the sale and destruction of this landmark building and its inspirational art.”
The letter was spearheaded by a trio of Jewish artists — Elise Engler, Joyce Kozloff and Martha Rosler — and currently has more than 300 signatures. Another petition aiming to preserve the building was launched in November, led by a group called the Living New Deal.
The Jewish Museum has expressed sympathy to the cause but not said whether or how it might heed the activists’ calls.
“The Jewish Museum, like all other collecting museums, is deeply committed to the stewardship of art and architecture as part of our shared cultural legacies,” director James Snyder said in a statement.
He added, “We have been attentive to this issue since it emerged, and we stand with other art world leaders, artists, and preservationists in advocating for the protection and preservation of these historic murals, while we also work to advance further strategies to ensure their safekeeping.”
The Cohen Building, which houses staffers from multiple government agencies, is sometimes referred to as the “Sistine Chapel of the New Deal” due to the style and content of the frescoes painted directly onto the walls. Completed in 1940, the building was a project of President Franklin Roosevelt’s economic and social plan known as the New Deal. Artwork for New Deal projects celebrated the working class in a new American style and were made to be accessible to the public.
Jewish artists including Shahn, Philip Guston, and Seymour Fogel contributed murals to the Cohen Building. Sculptures by archaeologist/sculptor Emma Lu Davis, German-American sculptor Henry Kreis and Richmond Barthé, a fixture of the Harlem Renaissance, can also be found throughout the building, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. It is extremely difficult to remove frescoes from the walls they are painted on.
The agency that oversees the U.S. government’s real estate, called the General Services Administration, began selling other federal buildings on its list late last year in a process called “accelerated disposition.” This would permit a quick sale with limited public input.
The Trump administration is in the process of moving staff out of the Cohen building, a requirement for its sale. Should the Cohen building ultimately be sold to a private buyer, there is no guarantee that the artworks will be preserved, the activists say. But the GSA says otherwise.
“As designated by Congress, the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building is required to be sold within two years of the building being vacated,” Marianne Copenhaver, a spokeswoman, said in a statement to JTA. “The building is still occupied. GSA has engaged art conservation professionals to evaluate the current condition of the New Deal art and identify any necessary conservation measures.”
The building’s namesake helped write the 1935 Social Security Act and later served as the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The provision that permits the sale was tacked onto a water bill passed in January 2025. The sale reflects the GSA’s sweeping mandate to cut costs under the Trump administration. One of the officials playing a leading role in that effort is Josh Gruenbaum, a Jewish attorney who was appointed commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, the GSA office that makes purchases on behalf of the government. Gruenbaum has been named a senior advisor to Trump’s Board of Peace, and has said he is using his FAS role to counter antisemitism.
The post Federal building with murals by Jewish artists at risk of sale, demolition appeared first on The Forward.