Uncategorized
A manufactured ‘mainstream’ wants the White House to define antisemitism on its own flawed terms
(JTA) — As the Biden administration nears the long-awaited announcement of its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, tensions have emerged over what definition of antisemitism the White House will use. According to Jewish Insider, “major mainstream Jewish groups” are battling against the “left” to define antisemitism, suggesting that the groups’ preferred definition, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is the mainstream one.
The framing determines a winner before the contest even begins — this is the power play of the term “mainstream.”
Here’s how it works: A purportedly neutral source — Jewish Insider, say, or the Associated Press — names a set of players as the “mainstream.” Without any discussion of method or sources, the characterization produces reality. The self-fulfilling designation allows a select group of organizations to command the center. These groups and their spokespeople then use their “mainstream” power to naturalize and normalize their own agenda, like defining the IHRA definition as the “gold standard” despite concerns that it chills legitimate criticism of Israel, or condemning “progressive” voices for their refusal to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism, or chastising Rep. Rashida Tlaib for commemorating the Nakba, the “catastrophe” that befell her people with the creation of Israel.
Game on.
The strategy of claiming the center to control it is nothing new. In the annals of American Jewish institutional formation, it’s happened again and again. Just witness the names of organizations: the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, and the list could go on and on. One after the other, these groups have claimed to be the center, the “mainstream.”
RELATED: The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and why people are fighting over it, explained (2021)
As a historian who has written about many of these groups, I can tell you that every claim to be the united front, the central address, the singular American Jewish organization has rested on the surety that most American Jews believed no such thing. Indeed, words that posture such a “mainstream” are best read as indicators of dissent, debate and fracture.
When it comes to confronting antisemitism, some of today’s Jewish leaders might imagine that American Jews can achieve unity that has long eluded them or Jewish institutional life. They might be so certain of this vision as to pretend that it is true, with fundraising and media blitzes that appear to speak on behalf of all Jews. Slick advertising campaigns, whether on television and social media or highway billboards, and a hotly contested and poorly constructed yet exclusive definition of antisemitism may make it seem that the Jewish “mainstream” speaks as one, loudly for all Jews and all people who care about fighting antisemitism.
But don’t let the powerplay bulldoze you. Those television and social media blitzes? They are the product of one megadonor’s imagination and thick wallet. The pink highway signs that deliver glib “lessons” against antisemitism in the form of snark? They are brought to you by the same high-net-worth family that advertised its storage company with similarly cheeky taglines. And even the creation of and campaigns to endorse the IHRA definition have specific histories and funding sources.
None of this is to say that those efforts should be dismissed because they have histories and are tied to narrow but deep pockets of wealth. The problem comes when those histories and sources of power go unacknowledged and instead parade themselves as the “mainstream,” the authentic truth of what all Jews must believe.
RELATED: The White House intends to fight antisemitism. That starts with a sensible definition. (Opinion)
In the power plays to claim the Jewish “mainstream,” institutions and their leaders are trying to silence those who disagree with their policies and politics. The term “mainstream” acts as a cudgel against efforts to build solidarity between Palestinians and Israelis who oppose the actions of the Israeli government. Its purveyors vocally and consistently defend harsh anti-boycott laws, on the books in several American states, that penalize institutions or individuals for engaging in or promoting boycotts against Israel. Or they helicopter onto American college campuses to pressure university administrators to subscribe to the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Instead of arriving at the field ready to play an honest game, “mainstream” Jewish institutions and their leaders want to be the only players. To argue that we must all agree on one definition in order to talk about antisemitism is like clearing the field before the game even begins.
Because this is more than a game — because hatred and bigotry fuel violent crimes at an alarming rate in the United States — Jewish and non-Jewish people who have a stake in the conversation about antisemitism should refuse to play. Publications that insist on anointing a “mainstream” ought to be called out. And the press, instead, should investigate the role that some of its agents play in advancing the power play of the “mainstream” — including, for example, Jewish Insider, which is less than transparent about its own history and sources of funding.
As a participant in one of the “listening sessions” convened by the White House in February of this year, I can report that the scholars who joined me around the table (OK, Zoom screen) had a wide range of perspectives. When asked to share our views on antisemitism, none of us got to call ourselves the “mainstream” expert on the questions. Instead, we identified the methods, sources and theories that authorized our understandings of the roots and manifestations of antisemitism.
I can only hope that the other listening sessions and the White House process has proceeded accordingly, with little reverence for the self-appointed Jewish “mainstream.” A resolve to understand the diversity of views and what led people or groups to them will upset any single view — or definition. A successful strategy will not be cowed by the “mainstream” but instead will highlight the varieties of truly and authentically held ideas that together can animate efforts to stem the tide of antisemitism and bigotry.
—
The post A manufactured ‘mainstream’ wants the White House to define antisemitism on its own flawed terms appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Cuba Defiant After Trump Says Island to Receive No More Venezuelan Oil or Money
A view shows part of Havana as U.S.-Cuba tensions rise after U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to stop Venezuelan oil and money from reaching Cuba and suggested the communist-run island to strike a deal with Washington, in Havana, Cuba, January 11, 2026. REUTERS/Norlys Perez
US President Donald Trump on Sunday said no more Venezuelan oil or money will go to Cuba and suggested the Communist-run island should strike a deal with Washington, ramping up pressure on the long-time US nemesis and provoking defiant words from the island’s leadership.
Venezuela is Cuba’s biggest oil supplier, but no cargoes have departed from Venezuelan ports to the Caribbean country since the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces in early January amid a strict US oil blockade on the OPEC country, shipping data shows.
Meanwhile, Caracas and Washington are progressing on a $2 billion deal to supply up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil to the US with proceeds to be deposited in US Treasury-supervised accounts, a major test of the emerging relationship between Trump and interim President Delcy Rodriguez.
“THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday.
“Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela,” Trump added.
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejected Trump’s threat on social media, suggesting the US had no moral authority to force a deal on Cuba.
“Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do,” Diaz-Canel said on X. “Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the US for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood.”
The US president did not elaborate on his suggested deal.
But Trump’s push on Cuba represents the latest escalation in his move to bring regional powers in line with the United States and underscores the seriousness of the administration’s ambition to dominate the Western Hemisphere.
Trump’s top officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have made no secret of their expectation that the recent US intervention in Venezuela could push Cuba over the edge.
US officials have hardened their rhetoric against Cuba in recent weeks, though the two countries have been at odds since former leader Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.
CUBA DEFENDS IMPORT RIGHTS
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said in another post on X on Sunday that Cuba had the right to import fuel from any suppliers willing to export it. He also denied that Cuba had received financial or other “material” compensation in return for security services provided to any country.
Thirty-two members of Cuba’s armed forces and intelligence services were killed during the US raid on Venezuela. Cuba said those killed were responsible for “security and defense” but did not provide details on the arrangement between the two long-time allies.
Cuba relies on imported crude and fuel mainly provided by Venezuela, and Mexico in smaller volumes, purchased on the open market to keep its power generators and vehicles running.
As its operational refining capacity dwindled in recent years, Venezuela’s supply of crude and fuel to Cuba has fallen. But the South American country is still the largest provider with some 26,500 barrels per day exported last year, according to ship tracking data and internal documents of state-run PDVSA, which covered roughly 50 percent of Cuba’s oil deficit.
Havana produce vendor Alberto Jimenez, 45, said Cuba would not back down in the face of Trump’s threat.
“That doesn’t scare me. Not at all. The Cuban people are prepared for anything,” Jimenez said.
It’s hard for many Cubans to imagine a situation much worse. The island’s government has been struggling to keep the lights on. A majority live without electricity for much of the day, and even the capital Havana has seen its economy crippled by hours-long rolling blackouts.
Shortages of food, fuel and medicine have put Cubans on edge and have prompted a record-breaking exodus, primarily to the United States, in the past five years.
MEXICO BECOMES KEY SUPPLIER
Mexico has emerged in recent weeks as a critical alternative oil supplier to the island, but the supply remains small, according to the shipping data.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum last week said her country had not increased supply volumes, but given recent political events in Venezuela, Mexico had turned into an “important supplier” of crude to Cuba.
US intelligence has painted a grim picture of Cuba’s economic and political situation, but its assessments offer no clear support for Trump’s prediction that the island is “ready to fall,” Reuters reported on Saturday, citing three people familiar with the confidential assessments.
The CIA’s view is that key sectors of the Cuban economy, such as agriculture and tourism, are severely strained by frequent blackouts, trade sanctions and other problems. The potential loss of oil imports and other support from Venezuela could make governing more difficult for Diaz-Canel.
Havana resident and parking attendant Maria Elena Sabina, a 58-year-old born shortly after Castro took power, said it was time for Cuba’s leaders to make changes amid so much suffering.
“There’s no electricity here, no gas, not even liquefied gas. There’s nothing here,” Sabina said. “So yes, a change is needed, a change is needed, and quickly.”
Uncategorized
NATO Should Launch Operation to Boost Security in Arctic, Belgian Minister says
Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken speaks to journalists as he arrives to an informal meeting of European Union defence ministers in Copenhagen, Denmark, August 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tom Little
NATO should launch an operation in the Arctic to address US security concerns, Belgium’s defense minister told Reuters on Sunday, urging transatlantic unity amid growing European unease about US President Donald Trump’s push to take control of Greenland.
“We have to collaborate, work together and show strength and unity,” Theo Francken said in a phone interview, adding that there is a need for “a NATO operation in the high north.”
Trump said on Friday that the US needs to own Greenland to prevent Russia or China from occupying it in the future.
European officials have been discussing ways to ease US concerns about security around Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Francken suggested NATO’s Baltic Sentry and Eastern Sentry operations, which combine forces from different countries with drones, sensors and other technology to monitor land and sea, as possible models for an “Arctic Sentry.”
He acknowledged Greenland‘s strategic importance but said “I think that we need to sort this out like friends and allies, like we always do.”
A NATO spokesperson said on Friday that alliance chief Mark Rutte spoke with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the importance of the Arctic for shared security and how NATO is working to enhance its capabilities in the high north.
Denmark and Greenland‘s leaders have said that the Arctic island could not be annexed and international security did not justify such a move.
The US already has a military presence on the island under a 1951 agreement.
Uncategorized
IDF Strikes Hezbollah Weapons Sites in Lebanon After Army Denied Its Existence
Israeli strikes targeting Hezbollah’s terror infrastructure. Photo: Via i23, Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law.
i24 News – The Israel Defense Forces carried out airstrikes on a site in southern Lebanon that the Lebanese Army had previously declared free of Hezbollah activity, Israeli officials said on Sunday, citing fresh intelligence that contradicted Beirut’s assessment.
According to Israeli sources, the targeted location in the Kfar Hatta area contained significant Hezbollah weapons infrastructure, despite earlier inspections by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) that concluded no military installations were present.
Lebanese officials had conveyed those findings to international monitoring mechanisms, and similar claims were reported in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.
Israeli intelligence assessments, however, determined that Hezbollah continued to operate from the site.
During a second wave of strikes carried out Sunday, the IDF attacked and destroyed the location.
Video footage released afterward showed secondary explosions, which Israeli officials said were consistent with stored weapons or munitions at the site.
The IDF stated that the strike was conducted in response to what it described as Hezbollah’s ongoing violations of ceasefire understandings between Israel and Lebanon. Military officials said the targeted structure included underground facilities used for weapons storage.
According to the IDF, the same site had been struck roughly a week earlier after Israel alerted the Lebanese Army to what it described as active terrorist infrastructure in the area. While the LAF conducted an inspection following the warning, Israeli officials said the weapons facilities were not fully dismantled, prompting Sunday’s follow-up strike.
The IDF said it took measures ahead of the attack to reduce the risk to civilians, including issuing advance warnings to residents in the surrounding area.
“Hezbollah’s activity at these sites constitutes a clear violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon and poses a direct threat to the State of Israel,” the military said in a statement.
Israeli officials emphasized that operations against Hezbollah infrastructure would continue as long as such threats persist, underscoring that Israel retains the right to act independently based on its own intelligence assessments.