RSS
Why Is the Media Attacking the ADL for Fighting Antisemitism?
Illustrative: Pro-Hamas protesters in front of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City’s Upper East Side neighborhood. Source: X/Twitter
If you’re someone prone to antisemitic views of the world, and want a source you can reply on to consistently affirm your biases — without resorting to fringe extremists like David Miller or “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-like conspiracy theories — you’d likely turn to the Guardian, the outlet where respectable Judeophobic and Israel-phobic readers can safely turn without fear of social opprobrium.
The most recent dog whistle parading as “speaking truth to power” is an article by Tom Perkins which, following in the long tradition of Chris McGreal, warns of the dangers posed to the American public by organized Jewry.
The piece (“Anti-Defamation League ramps up lobbying to promote controversial definition of antisemitism”, May 15), is riddled with distortions and smears, beginning in the headline’s assertion that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism is “controversial.”
The claim, as you can see here, is belied by the number of countries, law enforcement agencies, universities, public bodies, and international institutions, which endorse IHRA. This includes 37 (democratic) countries, 320 non-federal governments (including state, regional, provincial, municipal and county bodies), 320 universities, and a total of 865 entities across the world.
The IHRA definition is generally only “controversial” among those who wish to use Israel-Nazi analogies, and call for the destruction of the Jewish State, with moral impunity.
The article’s opening paragraph reads like it was generated by an AI tool designed to mock Guardian bias over the issue:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has spent record amounts lobbying for bills opponents say are meant to punish criticism of Israel and target Jewish peace and Palestinian rights groups, marking a shift in strategy over the last several years. [emphasis added]
First, we should note the important context that the ADL is the largest mainstream Jewish organization in the US, and in fact, has been criticized by many for its progressive agenda on issues such as DEI, (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion).
Perkins appears to define the ADL’s efforts to fight antisemitism by promoting the adoption of IHRA (a non-legal definition which contains multiple caveats and qualifications, and does not define criticism of Israel as antisemitic) as “punishing criticism of Israel.”
Perkins informs readers that the ADL is “on pace to spend nearly $1.6m this year based on its first quarter expenditures” to advance IHRA and its other domestic policy agendas. However, the very Federal tax document which “reveals” the ADL’s budget for lobbying shows that their agenda centers around fighting domestic extremism, and other issues which aren’t controversial.
In fact, the ADL’s lobbying efforts, per the tax document cited, highlights their lobbying for bills to fight “global white supremacy” several times, while nothing is mentioned about Islamist or Palestinian extremism.
The only mentions of Israel in the document are “Support for the Abraham Accords and the historic normalization process between Israel and countries in the region” and “Support for H.Res.92 – Recognizing Israel as America’s legitimate and democratic ally and condemning antisemitism”.
To observe that the ADL’s lobbying is not laced with a “right-wing” or anti-Palestinian agenda in a profound understatement.
The article then takes direct aim at IHRA.
Though the Guardian is typically supportive of anti-hate legislation, when it comes to Jews, they take a different view.
Perkins repeats Guardian talking points about how IHRA would limit freedom of speech when he writes about a proposed bill, called the Antisemitism Awareness Act. The Act would “require that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights take into consideration … IHRA … when reviewing or investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin…”.
Though Perkins claims the bill is “opposed by groups and politicians across the political spectrum,” the bill had 61 co-sponsors, including 15 Democrats, and recently passed the House of Representative with an overwhelming majority of 320 to 91.
Moreover, those who understand the US political system would know that the country’s Constitution includes what’s arguably the most robust protection of speech in the world. So, any bill passed by Congress which runs afoul of First Amendment protections of free expression would be overturned by the courts.
Perkins also demonstrates bad faith when he misrepresents the IHRA definition as including the “labeling Israel a racist state” as antisemitic.
In fact, the definition only defines “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” as antisemitic. The difference is profound. Accusing Israel of being racist is not considered antisemitic, while claiming that the state has no right to exist, because Zionism is intrinsically racist, is defined by IHRA as antisemitic.
The Guardian’s efforts to scare readers about organized Jewry’s efforts to “punish” mere “criticism of Israel” is based on a deceitful portrayal of IHRA.
The journalist also writes that the ADL often falsely attributes “support for terror” to anti-war and ceasefire rallies by Jewish groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). However, to describe the anti-Israel campus rallies as anti-war is an inversion of reality. As we’ve demonstrated, the rallies have included explicit antisemitism, as well as speeches and chants expressing opposition to Israel’s existence, and supportive for terror attacks.
One leader of the Columbia University protest literally said that the overwhelming majority of Jews (that is, ‘Zionists’) “don’t deserve to live.”
Finally, the most important issue regarding ADL’s lobbying and advocacy is ignored by the Guardian reporter: the tsunami of antisemitism in America following the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023.
There were 8,873 recorded antisemitic incidents across the United States in 2023, representing a 140% increase from 2022. This is the highest number on record since the ADL began tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979. (This mirrors the dramatic increase of antisemitic incidents in the UK since Oct. 7.)
Graphic from ADL’s annual audit of antisemitism.
Given that the dramatic increase in anti-Jewish racism was largely inspired by hatred of Israel and pro-Hamas/pro-Palestinian activism, it’s not surprising that the Guardian would publish a piece attempting to discredit the Jewish organization trying to fight this scourge. Though the Guardian is a large institution, almost all of their reporters, editors, and columnists are united in their refusal to come to terms with the fact that pro-Palestinianism is a vector for antisemitism.
Adam Levick serves as co-editor of CAMERA UK – an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Why Is the Media Attacking the ADL for Fighting Antisemitism? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New York Democrats Hesitate to Endorse Far-Left Zohran Mamdani Following Stunning NYC Primary Victory
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
Multiple moderate New York Democrats are hesitating to endorse Zohran Mamdani following his victory Tuesday in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, citing concerns over his alleged antisemitism and socialist policies.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblyman and proud democratic socialist, toppled former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a lopsided first‑round win in the Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4%.
Voters in New York City rank their choices in order of their preference. While Mamdani declared victory and Cuomo conceded defeat, the race’s ultimate outcome will technically be decided when every vote is tallied, taking into account the ranked choice count. Mamdani’s victory is all but assured.
Some observers have speculated that Mamdani’s win over an older, high-profile Democrat signifies growing frustration with the party’s status quo and represents a generational change
US Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY), a freshman lawmaker representing a swing-district in Nassau County, slammed Mamdani for his far-left economic agenda and repeated “antisemitism.”
“Socialist Zohran Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City. His entire campaign has been built on unachievable promises and higher taxes,” Gillen said in a statement. “Beyond that, Mr. Mamdani has called to defund the police and has demonstrated a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments which stoke hate at a time when antisemitism is skyrocketing.”
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), a moderate lawmaker representing the Empire State’s 3rd district, also declined to endorse Mamdani, citing “serious concerns.”
“I had serious concerns about Assemblyman Mamdani before yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I endorsed his opponent. Those concerns remain,” Suozzi posted on X.
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani, but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has indicated interest in meeting with the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee in New York City to hold discussions prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement.
The progressive representative in the New York State Assembly has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
During that same speech, Mamdani touted his longstanding anti-Israel activism.
“I was somebody who began my journey in organizing and in politics by co-founding my school’s first Students for Justice in Palestine. The struggle for Palestinian liberation was at the core of my politics and continues to be,” Mamdani said.
Students for Justice in Palestine has been at the forefront of the wave of pro-Hamas demonstrations that have engulfed college campuses during the Gaza war.
Jewish leaders in New York, the broader US, and even abroad have expressed alarm over Mamdani’s primary victory, with many accusing him of antisemitism and noting he has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career.
The post New York Democrats Hesitate to Endorse Far-Left Zohran Mamdani Following Stunning NYC Primary Victory first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sweden Democrats Apologize for Past Nazi Links, Antisemitism as Election Nears
Mattias Karlsson, Sweden Democrats politicians, addresses party members after election in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 9, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Ints Kalnins
The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats apologized on Thursday for the party’s past Nazi links and antisemitism, part of efforts to present a more moderate, mainstream image to voters ahead of a national election next year.
The Sweden Democrats were presenting the results of a specially commissioned study that found Nazi and antisemitic views to have been common at party functions and in its printed materials in the 1980s and 1990s.
“That there have been clear expressions of antisemitism and support for National Socialist ideas in my party’s history I think is disgusting and reprehensible,” Mattias Karlsson, a member of parliament often described as the party’s chief ideologist, told a news conference.
“I would like to reiterate the party’s apology, above all to Swedish citizens of Jewish descent who may have felt a strong sense of insecurity and fear for good reasons.”
The commissioning of the study sought to acknowledge and break with a past that has long hindered its cooperation with Sweden‘s mainstream political parties. The Sweden Democrats hope to join a future coalition government after the 2026 election.
The party first entered parliament in 2010 and currently supports Sweden‘s governing right-wing coalition government but has no members in the cabinet.
Tony Gustafsson, the historian hired by the party to write the book, said the party had emerged in the 1980s out of neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations and that it had continued to cooperate with them into the 1990s.
“The collaboration seems to have involved using these groups to help distribute election materials,” Gustafsson said, adding there were strong indications that one such group, the “White Aryan Resistance,” had served as security guards at party gatherings.
Gustafsson said there had been a clear connection to Nazism until 1995, the year that current party leader Jimmie Akesson joined the Sweden Democrats, but that the Sweden Democrats had begun distancing itself from such links thereafter.
The post Sweden Democrats Apologize for Past Nazi Links, Antisemitism as Election Nears first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in a televised message, after the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 26, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran would respond to any future US attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel.
Khamenei, 86, claimed victory after 12 days of war, culminating in an Iranian attack on the largest US base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes. No casualties were reported in the Iranian attack, which was coordinated with both US and Qatari authorities beforehand in an apparent effort to show a symbolic display of force without triggering retaliation.
“The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,” Khamenei said.
As in his last comments, released more than a week ago during the Israeli bombardment, he spoke from an undisclosed indoor location in front of a brown curtain, between an Iranian flag and a portrait of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini.
In his pre-recorded remarks, aired on state television, Khamenei promised that Iran would not surrender despite US President Donald Trump’s calls.
“The US President Trump unveiled the truth and made it clear that Americans won’t be satisfied with anything less than surrender… such an event will never happen,” Khamenei said.
“The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centers in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made,” he added.
Trump said “sure” on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment program.
Tehran has for decades denied accusations by Western leaders that it is seeking nuclear arms.
NO GAIN
Khamenei said the US “gained no achievement” after it attacked Iranian nuclear sites, but that it entered the war to “save” Israel after some of Tehran’s missiles broke through Israel’s multi-layered defense system.
“The US directly entered the war as it felt that if it did not get involved, the Zionist regime [Israel] would be fully destroyed. It entered the war to save it,” he said.
“The US attacked our nuclear facilities, but couldn’t do any important deed … The US president did abnormal showmanship and needed to do so,” he added.
Trump said over the weekend that the US deployment of 30,000-pound bombs had “obliterated” Iran‘s nuclear program. Officials and experts are still probing the extent of the damage.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also declared “a historic victory” on Tuesday, after the fragile ceasefire took effect, saying Israel had achieved its goal of removing Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat.
Shortly after Khamenei’s speech, Netanyahu posted a message with a picture of himself and Trump holding hands with the message: “We will continue to work together to defeat our common enemies.”
The post Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked first appeared on Algemeiner.com.