Uncategorized
A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Major American Jewish organizations that hoped to send a unified message about the turmoil in Israel yesterday instead found themselves tussling, partly in the public eye, about what exactly they wanted to say.
Should they praise the massive anti-government protests that have taken shape in recent months? Should they criticize Israel’s sitting government? What, if anything, should they endorse as a next step in the ongoing crisis?
Five large Jewish organizations — all known for their vocal pro-Israel advocacy — began Monday afternoon trying to answer those questions in a unified voice that sent a positive message: praise for a decision to pause the government’s divisive judicial overhaul.
Instead, in a somewhat messy process that unfolded over the course of the afternoon, they ended up sending out a number of different statements that contrasted in subtle yet telling ways. The scramble to publish a statement reflecting consensus — and the resulting impression that consensus was lacking — was a reflection of how Israel’s politics have created a rift in the U.S. Jewish establishment.
For decades, large American Jewish groups have publicly supported Israel’s foreign policy, and mostly stayed quiet on its domestic conflicts. Now, a domestic policy issue threatening to tear Israel apart has compelled at least some of them to do two unusual things: opine on Israel’s internal affairs, and publicly chide the government that, in their view, is responsible for the crisis.
“For a long time any criticism of Israel, even criticism of very difficult policies, was thought to be disloyal, and couldn’t be spoken out of love,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which was not a signatory to the statement but is a constituent of the group that organized it. “I think we now understand that there’s plenty of legitimate criticism and activism that comes from that very place.”
The five groups that began composing the statement together were the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. All have historically been seen as centrist, pro-Israel and representative of the American Jewish establishment, speaking for American Jews in international forums and in meetings with elected officials. All have annual budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Any vocal criticism from those groups has largely been limited to Israel’s treatment of non-Orthodox Jews. Because most American Jews are themselves not Orthodox, American Jewish groups have felt more comfortable advocating for policies that, they believe, will allow more of their constituents to feel welcome in the Jewish state.
But events this year have prompted the groups to speak out on another Israeli domestic issue: the judicial overhaul being pushed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to sap the Israeli Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. The court has, in the past, defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel such as women, the non-Orthodox, Arabs and the LGBTQ community.
“The recognition that what happens in Israel, the policies of the Israeli government and a broader range of issues in this particular case — on judicial reform, the perception of Israel as a vibrant democracy for all of its citizens — that perception has a significant impact on American Jewish life and American Jewish engagement,” said Gil Preuss, CEO of Washington, D.C.’s Jewish federation.
Most of the five groups had previously endorsed calls for compromise on the judicial reform proposal. The federations had also come out against one of its key elements. So when Netanyahu announced on Monday — in the face of widespread protests and dissent from allies — that he would pause the legislative push to allow time for dialogue, they all hoped to express their support.
What to write after that sentiment, however, proved contentious. A version of the statement put out by the American Jewish Committee included sharp criticism of Israeli politicians that was not in the other statements.
The Jewish Federations of North America sent out an addendum to the statement that was sympathetic to anti-Netanyahu protesters.
And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ultimately opted out of the statement altogether — but not before a version had already been released in its name.
None of the five groups responded to requests for comment on the process behind the statement, but insiders said the differences between the statements, and AIPAC’s opting out, had little to do with policy differences. Instead, they blamed the confusion on missteps in the rush to get the statement out in the minutes after Netanyahu’s remarks, which aired in Israel at 8 p.m. and in the early afternoon on the East Coast, where all of the groups are based.
The statement that ultimately appeared, after declaring that the groups “welcome the Israeli government’s suspension” of the reforms, said that the raucous debate and protests over the legislation were “painful to watch” but also “a textbook case of democracy in action.”
A key line included rare advice to Israel from the establishment Jewish groups: “As a next step, we encourage all Knesset factions, coalition and opposition alike, to use this time to build a consensus that includes the broad support of Israeli civil society.”
The Conference of Presidents was the first to release the statement, just past 2 p.m., less than an hour after Netanyahu had completed his remarks. It listed its co-endorsers as the AJC, the ADL and JFNA.
Five minutes later, the AJC put out a version of the same statement that added AIPAC to the endorsers. It included the same sentence offering advice, plus another two that added criticism and a caution: “Israel’s political leaders must insist on a more respectful tone and debate. A hallmark of democracy is public consensus and mutual consideration.”
Statements from JFNA and ADL, which went out subsequently, hewed to the Conference of Presidents version. An AIPAC official told JTA that the group did not want to sign onto the statement because it had wanted more time to add edits.
Just before 3 p.m., more than 40 minutes after its initial email, AJC sent out an email advising recipients that its inclusion of AIPAC was an error.
But its new statement still included the line criticizing politicians, which the other groups had eschewed. In the end, AJC removed that line, too: It is absent from the version of the statement posted on the group’s website.
AIPAC ultimately settled on posting a tweet that stuck to praising Israel for its democratic process, without further comment.
“For many weeks, Israelis have engaged in a vigorous debate reflective of the Jewish state’s robust democracy,” it said. “Israel’s diverse citizenship is showcasing its passionate engagement in the democratic process to determine the policies that will guide their country.”
JFNA, in an explanatory email to its constituents attached to the joint statement, was more pointed in its criticism of Netanyahu. On Sunday night, the prime minister had summarily fired his defense minister, Yoav Galant, for publicly advocating a pause on the legislation. That decision sparked protests across Israel, which in turn prompted Netanyahu to announce exactly the same pause and compromise that Gallant had proposed.
“The response across Israeli society was immediate and angry,” said the email signed by Julie Platt, the chairwoman of JFNA, and Eric Fingerhut, its CEO. “Spontaneous protests gathered in the streets and commentators expressed shock at a decision to fire a Defense Minister for having expressed concern about the risks to the country’s military position … Netanyahu’s own lawyer in his corruption trial announced that he could no longer represent him.”
The groups weren’t alone in releasing pained statements about Israel’s volatility — which has also stirred anguish among groups that have previously defended the Israeli right.
This week, Rabbi Moshe Hauer of the Orthodox Union, who met earlier this month with far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, praised Israel’s leaders for “the recognition of the value of taking time, engaging with each other with honesty and humility, and proceeding to build consensus.” (Smotrich, for his part, supports the overhaul and opposed pausing the legislation.)
“Our Sages taught, ‘Peace is great; discord is despised’,” Hauer, the group’s executive director, said in an emailed statement to JTA. “We are deeply shaken by the upheaval and discord that has gripped our beloved State of Israel. In recent weeks, the Jewish tradition and the democratic value of vigorous debate have been replaced by something very dangerous and different.”
The two largest non-Orthodox movements were open about their opposition to the overhaul. “We believe ardently that the proposed judicial reform is fraught with danger and goes against the principles of democracy,” the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly said in a statement Tuesday.
A statement from the leadership of the Reform movement, including Jacobs, castigated Netanyahu for agreeing to create a national guard under the authority of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, and for being “willing to risk the safety and security of Israel’s citizens to keep himself and his coalition in power.”
That strong language, Jacobs suggested, reflects the wishes of those who fund establishment Jewish groups and congregations. He said those groups were hearing from donors whose frustration with the Netanyahu government is reaching a boiling point.
“I hear of donors telling organizations, ‘I have to tell you, I don’t hear your voice, speaking out in favor of Israel’s democracy at this very vulnerable moment. So I’ll tell you what, why don’t you hang on to my phone number when you find your voice?’”
—
The post A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Nominee for Wisconsin governor appeared with podcast host who defended ‘Camp Auschwitz’ t-shirt
Rep. Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin’s Republican nominee for governor, is facing heat for appearing on a podcast hosted by an online personality with a history of antisemitic remarks and jokes about Adolf Hitler.
“The Quartering” podcast host Jeremy Hambly has said Adolf Hitler had “actually done some good things,” joked with guests about the Holocaust by calling it the “Hall of Cost” and saying it cost “around 6 million bucks,” and defended a “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirt worn during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot as “dark humor.” In 2023, The Quartering was sponsored by Antelope Hill Publishing, a white nationalist publisher that marked Hitler’s birthday each year by offering discounts on books written by and about the Nazi leader.
Tiffany discussed his gubernatorial bid on a December episode of the podcast, as reported by the Milwaukee Courier — news that emerged after Tiffany had criticized a leading Democratic candidate for appearing with popular progressive streamer Hasan Piker, who has been embraced by Democratic Party candidates even as he has championed terrorist groups as righteous fighters against Israel — leading to accusations he trafficks in antisemitism. In a recent speech to college students, Piker blasted Democrats who “fund ICE” and “fund Israel.”
On the podcast, Tiffany, who is running unopposed on the Republican side to replace Gov. Tony Evers, a two-term Democrat who announced his retirement, also accepted Hambly’s offer to volunteer for his campaign.
In the interview with Tiffany, Hambly said he “will do everything” he can to elect the Republican as governor and offered to help the Tiffany campaign alongside Scott Presler, a prominent “Stop the Steal” activist who has been affiliated with the anti-Islamic group ACT for America.
“I can bring Scott Presler out. We can doorknock for you,” Hambly said. When Hambly asked how supporters could get involved, Tiffany directed listeners to his campaign website to sign up as volunteers.
The resurfaced interview comes as Tiffany has sought to make antisemitism an issue in the governor’s race by criticizing Democratic state Rep. Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist whose campaign has gained momentum in the competitive Aug. 11 Democratic primary, for appearing on a livestream hosted by Piker.
“Remember what [Hong] said the day after we had all these socialists win recent elections?” Tiffany said on The Jay Weber Show last week. “Wisconsin, you’re next.” He later warned that voters “need to wake up” before Hong, whom he said was “going to hang around with an antisemite,” is elected governor.
The Tiffany campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the candidate’s podcast appearance.
Hong defended her appearance on Piker’s show, saying, “Just because I am on a platform certainly does not mean that I endorse everything that has been said by either the hosts or other people who have gone on.”
Wisconsin Republicans have been accused by Democrats of trying to boost Hong in the primary because they believe she would be easier to beat than her rivals in the general election. Recent polls show Hong with a slight lead.
Emily Stuckey, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, told the Forward in a statement that “Tiffany is cozying up to antisemitic extremists who have praised Hitler and encouraging them to volunteer with his campaign — it’s clear he is far too extreme to represent Wisconsin.”
The post Nominee for Wisconsin governor appeared with podcast host who defended ‘Camp Auschwitz’ t-shirt appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump rejects Mamdani vow to arrest Netanyahu in NYC
(JTA) — Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he’s still thinking about whether he should arrest Benjamin Netanyahu the next time the Israeli prime minister is in New York City. Not gonna happen, President Donald Trump stepped in on Monday to say.
“Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump’s post came days after Mamdani said that he is in “active conversation” with the city’s Law Department about detaining a foreign leader like Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged actions related to Israel’s war with Hamas. Netanyahu often attends the United Nations General Assembly in Manhattan in September and is planning to do so this year.
“I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in The Hague,” Mamdani reiterated, in an interview with the New York Times, referring to the court’s seat in the Netherlands.
He also hedged on his earlier pledge, seeming ready to defer to the city’s lawyers. (The legal consensus has been that a warrant by a court not recognized by the United States is unenforceable. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he is seeking the dismantlement of the ICC.)
“I’ve also said that I will follow the laws that we have here in New York City because I believe that there is an importance in following the law as a leader who presides over our city,” Mamdani told the Times. The interviewer, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, prompted him to elaborate. “Meaning that whatever the law allows me to do in New York City, that’s what we will do, but we won’t be writing our own laws to that end,” Mamdani said.
Trump jumped to the defense of Netanyahu, who is up for reelection later this year.
Netanyahu, he said, is busy fighting the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the “only ones that should be arrested are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!”
Trump’s comments come after months of speculation over how an attempted arrest of Netanyahu could pit New York City law enforcement against the United States. Mamdani told reporters after a private meeting with the president last year that the two men did not discuss his vow to arrest Netanyahu. Mamdani has said he would also push for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, were he to enter New York City.
Some Mamdani Democratic allies were also pouring cold water on the prospect of an arrest.
California Rep. Ro Khanna, who is often aligned with Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian politics, said on the Fox News Channel on Sunday that, in his view, Netanyahu “can come to the U.N. Assembly.”
“The ICC and ICJ have a legal process. That case will go forward,” Khanna said, adding that he’s focused on cutting military aid and stopping weapons sales to Israel. “But, you know, I’m not for creating a spectacle. The U.N. is a place that people can come to.”
Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Barack Obama, speculated that Mamdani’s plan could backfire, since an attempt to arrest Netanyahu would “give him a political boost at home” as Netanyahu fights for reelection. “That would be an own goal,” Shapiro wrote on X.
Republican New York City Council member Inna Vernikov, who is Jewish and has been a staunch Mamdani critic, wrote to Rubio requesting that the State Department issue Mamdani a “stern warning.” She also asked that the department issue an opinion on whether arresting Netanyahu would “violate U.S. law resulting in a prosecution and/or criminal action taken by the federal government against Mayor Mamdani.”
A New York City mayor has previously booted an international leader from a U.N.-related event. In 1995, Rudy Giuliani had Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, ejected from a U.N. concert at Lincoln Center, drawing criticism from then-President Bill Clinton’s administration.
Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote on Saturday that Netanyahu will be attending the U.N. General Assembly in September. “And if anyone should be arrested, it is @NYCMayor Zohran Mamdani,” he said.
The post Trump rejects Mamdani vow to arrest Netanyahu in NYC appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Where does Andy Burnham, the new British prime minister, stand on Israel and antisemitism?
(JTA) — Andy Burnham officially became Britain’s new Labour prime minister on Monday, replacing Keir Starmer who resigned following the party’s disastrous showing in local elections in May.
Starmer left behind a mixed record on antisemitism. He purged the party of its image as hostile to Jews under former party leader Jeremy Corbyn. But at the same time, attacks against Jews in Britain have risen in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack on Israel, and uncertainty is at a high.
Starmer’s successor has spent much of his political career over the past decade cultivating close ties with Britain’s Jewish community. As the former mayor of Greater Manchester, home to one of Europe’s largest Jewish populations, Burnham frequently spoke out against antisemitism, attended Holocaust commemorations and worked closely with Jewish communal organizations.
Yet in the lead-up to his installation as prime minister, Burnham also signaled a shift in Labour’s mainstream position on Israel and Gaza, including support for greater pressure on Israel.
Burnham’s comments about Labour’s leadership contest prompted a sharp rebuke from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, which expressed “significant concerns” over his framing of Gaza and Israel’s war with Hamas. The umbrella groups also said they welcomed his commitment to tackling antisemitism.
Here is a look at some of Burnham’s views on the subjects and how they might impact his party’s policies going forward.
Early support for Israel and a two-state solution
During Labour’s 2015 leadership contest, Burnham said at a Jewish community debate that his first foreign trip, should he win the Labour leadership, would be to Israel. He opposed a boycott of Israel, asking, “What message would it send?” while stating that he supported a negotiated two-state solution.
In a questionnaire sent to him that year by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, he also stated that he supported “two states living side by side in peace, and recognized by all of their neighbors.” However, he added that he supported “an end to occupation and illegal settlement building by the Israelis, and an end to the rocket and terror attacks by the terrorist group Hamas.”
He also made it clear at the time that he did not support West Bank settlements, telling the PSC, “Labour recognizes that the settlements and their continued expansion remain key obstacles to resolving the conflict, as [then party leader] Ed Miliband has said, they are both illegal and immoral.”
Labour’s antisemitism crisis
Burnham was vocal about tackling antisemitism when the Labour Party became embroiled in allegations of antisemitism under Corbyn’s leadership between 2015 and 2020,.
Corbyn had in 2012 mural defended a mural depicting hook-nosed Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of exploited workers. (He later said he regretted the defense.) He called representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends.”
Burnham told the Board of Deputies in 2019 that Labour had failed to deal with antisemitism complaints “firmly, quickly and decisively” and warned that the party had lost the confidence of many Jewish voters.
“It is inconceivable to me that a party which has prided itself on its record on racism could have become embroiled in an antisemitism crisis,” he said.
In 2020, the U.K.’s Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour had committed unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination related to antisemitism.
Oct. 7 and rising antisemitism
In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack, Burnham issued a statement with his deputy mayor saying, “We condemn without reservation the appalling attacks in Israel by Hamas. Nothing justifies the taking of innocent lives in such a barbaric and indiscriminate manner.”
He also stated that “Israel had a right to defend itself, and protect its citizens, in line with international law”
He told the Jewish community that he had spoken with Greater Manchester’s chief constable, who assured him there would be an increased police presence alongside Jewish community organizations. Burnham said local leaders were “determined that all our communities in Greater Manchester will be kept safe” and that “we will never tolerate any form of hatred on our streets.”
Manchester synagogue terror attack
Barely two years later on Yom Kippur 2025, Manchester became the target of a major terror attack, outside Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation. Two people were killed amid a police response.
“Manchester stands together and we will not allow division in our communities,” Burnham said, visiting the synagogue soon after what he described as an attack on the entire city.
Golders Green ambulance attack
Burnham spoke out in April when four Hatzola volunteer ambulances were set ablaze in London’s heavily Orthodox Golders Green neighborhood. “This is another terrible incident that will concern Jewish communities in London and in Greater Manchester who have faced appalling antisemitic attacks in recent months,” he said.
Recent comments on Gaza
Burnham has been critical of Israel’s military campaign in the aftermath of Oct. 7. He doubled down in a leadership campaign video released last week and took his own party to task.
He condemned Hamas and once again rejected antisemitism, but he argued Britain should “do more to put pressure on the Israeli government,” including considering further restrictions on arms exports and action against illegal West Bank settlements.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right, and I am sorry about that,” he said. The party was “too slow to call for a ceasefire.”
He called images from Gaza “a scar on our collective conscience.”
His comments reflect a parliamentary push across the board that Britain should do more to take action against Israel, including supporting a ban on all Israeli goods coming from the West Bank — something that Ireland and other European countries have been pushing for.
In his video, Burnham stopped short of describing Israel’s actions as genocide, saying that such a determination should be made by international courts.
Jewish communal reaction
The video drew a swift response from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council. Burnham had seen “first hand the links between hatred of Israel, antisemitic extremism and deadly violence against British Jews,” the groups said.
They urged Burnham and other political leaders to “show the utmost care in their rhetoric” at a time when antisemitism in Britain had become “more normalized, more extreme and more violent.”
British Jews will watch closely how Burnham balances his longstanding engagement with the Jewish community and his increasingly critical stance toward the Israeli government.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Chief Executive Gideon Falter read aloud an open letter to Burnham on Monday calling on him to take a stand against the rise in antisemitism in the country. “Your legacy will not be remembered solely in terms of tax rates and hospital waiting times,” Falter said. “It will be whether Jews were murdered or thrived in Andy Burnham’s Britain.”
Board of Deputies President Phil Rosenberg congratulated Burnham on X, and welcomed the new prime minister’s “early commitment to tackling antisemitism,” and that the Board “will work with his administration towards the U.K. playing its strongest role in global peace and security.”
Ephraim Mirvis, the country’s chief rabbi, posted a photo on X of himself and Burnham and offered a blessing. “He assumes the immense responsibility of leadership at a time of great challenge, both at home and abroad,” Mirvis said. “May he be blessed with the wisdom, strength and good judgment to keep our country safe and may his service bring prosperity and harmony for all.”
The post Where does Andy Burnham, the new British prime minister, stand on Israel and antisemitism? appeared first on The Forward.
