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
JD Vance Argues Against the Pope’s Calls for Peace As Iran’s LEGO AI Videos Stoke America’s Religious Divisions
An Iranian propaganda video attacks President Donald Trump in response to social media postings critical of the Pope and regarded as insensitive to Christians. Photo: Screenshot.
Vice President JD Vance, who converted to Catholicism in August 2019 at age 35 criticzed Pope Leo’s call for peace between the United States and Iran, another example of growing religious disagreements among Christians which Iranian propagandists have sought to exacerbate in new propaganda videos.
On Thursday at an event organized in Georgia by conservative activist group Turning Point USA, Vance said when asked about the head of his church disagreeing with President Donald Trump’s policies, “I do think we have to remember that each of us has our own role. I’m the Vice President of the United States. The fundamental way I understand my role is I’m trying to take the lessons, the moral truths that are rooted in Christianity and I’m trying to apply to a whole host of complicated real world scenarios.” Tepid applause broke out in response with Vance then thanking the crowd.
The Vice President’s comments came in the days following social media postings from Trump which included a broadside against Pope Leo and an AI-generated image depicting the Commander-in-Chief wearing white and red flowing robes as he placed one of his glowing hands on the head of a sick man. Trump later removed the image following the criticism of longtime Christian members of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.
Iran took advantage of the social media kerfuffle, on Wednesday the Iranian embassy in Tajikistan posted an AI animation which took the original image and modified it to mock Trump.
Another propaganda video released by a pro-Iran group this week also responded to Trump’s social media postings about the Pope and the Jesus image, again deploying the AI-generated animation style depicting the president and other American officials as LEGO characters while a soundtrack delivers rhyming insults.
The Occupy Democrats Facebook group which has 11 million followers celebrated another pro-Iran propaganda video that has started circulating online.
While the president’s opponents on the progressive left may enjoy Iran’s jabs at Trump, the video’s themes casting him as an enemy of Christianity seek to exacerbate pre-existing intra-theological conflicts among the MAGA base.
This year, other recent Catholic converts — notably far-right podcaster Candace Owens and her supporter Carrie Prejean Boller, the former beauty queen contestant ejected from a White House Religious Liberty Panel on antisemitism following her questioning about Christian Zionism — have also advanced positions counter to Catholic teachings.
Prejean Boller claims that Zionism and Catholicism are incompatible, writing on X after her dismissal from the panel that “I will continue to stand against Zionist supremacy in America. I’m a proud Catholic. I, in no way will be forced to embrace Zionism as a fulfillment of biblical prophesy [sic]. I am a free American. Not a slave to a foreign nation.”
In response to her actions, the group Catholics for Catholics awarded Prejean Boller a “Catholic Champion” award at its gala, an event also featuring Owens and Joe Kent, the recently-resigned director of the National Counterterrorism Center who has suggested that Israel controls America’s foreign policy and may have have had a hand in the Sept. 10, 2025 assassination of Turning Point USA chief Charlie Kirk.
Uncategorized
Antisemitic Beliefs More Common Among Young Social Media Users, Yale Poll Reveals
Penn State graduate student Roua Daas, an organizer with Students for Justice in Palestine, speaks at a pro-Palestinian protest at the Allen Street gates in State College, Pa. on Monday, February 12, 2024. (Photo by Paul Weaver/Sipa USA)No Use Germany.
A new survey from Yale Youth Poll is raising fresh concerns about antisemitism among younger Americans, revealing a significant link between social media consumption and anti-Jewish sentiment.
The Spring 2026 poll, conducted by researchers affiliated with Yale University, finds that Americans aged 18 to 34 are more likely than older generations to agree with statements widely recognized as antisemitic even as many express uncertainty about what qualifies as antisemitism in the first place.
According to the survey, a significant share of young respondents agreed with longstanding antisemitic tropes. Roughly a quarter to a third of the youngest respondents expressed belief in ideas such as Jews having “too much power” or divided loyalty between the United States and Israel. The poll also found that about one in five young respondents supported boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses to express disapproval over Israel’s war in Gaza.
The poll reveals that roughly 10 percent of those 18-34 agreed with all three of these antisemitic sentiments. Conversely, only 2 percent of those above 65 agreed with all three.
While these views are not held by a majority, experts say the numbers are high enough to raise alarms.
Beyond attitudes themselves, the poll also indicates that youth who receive news from alternative media sources, such as social media, are more likely to harbor antisemitic sentiments.
Respondents who rely more heavily on social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and X/Twitter, were significantly more likely to agree with antisemitic statements.
The survey also points to a striking divide based on how young Americans consume news. Respondents who rely primarily on social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X were roughly 1.5 to 2 times more likely to agree with antisemitic statements than their peers who turn to traditional sources like television or newspapers. On measures such as beliefs about Jewish power or loyalty, gaps of 10 to 15 percentage points emerged between the two groups, with social media–heavy users consistently showing higher levels of agreement.
The pattern is striking enough to suggest that digital information ecosystems may be shaping perceptions in ways that traditional media does not. Further, the underlying pattern can give insight into why opinions on Israel and antisemitism substantially diverge among US youth compared to older generations.
Observers point to the nature of these platforms, where algorithm-driven feeds often elevate emotionally charged, highly simplified content. In that environment, complex geopolitical conflicts, such as the war in Gaza, can be reduced to slogans, viral clips, and narratives that blur the line between political criticism and longstanding antisemitic themes.
In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 slaughters in Israel, a bevy of left-leaning social media personalities immediately condemned Israel and accused the Jewish state of committing war crimes and genocide in Gaza. Several reports indicate that anti-Israel content performs especially well on youth-centric social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, incentivizing content creators to intensify public criticisms of the Jewish state. The Yale survey suggests that for many young Americans, views on Israel are increasingly intertwined with perceptions of Jewish people more broadly.
The poll also challenges attempts to place blame on a single political group. The data indicates that both “extremely conservative” and “extremely liberal” individuals are likely to express belief that antisemitism is a “serious problem” in the country. Moderate voters are more likely to express ambivalence, with a plurality indicating that they “neither agree nor disagree” that antisemitism is a significant issue in the US.
Importantly, the survey does not suggest that most young Americans hold antisemitic views.
But it does point to a rising level of acceptance, or at least tolerance, of ideas that were once more widely rejected. Moreover, the poll suggests that young people underestimate the level of antisemitism that persists in the country. For instance, among voters ages 18-34, 29 percent agree with the antisemitic conspiracy “Jews have an extremely organized international community that puts their own interests before those of their home countries” compared to only 17 percent of those age 65. Approximately 8 percent of the 18-34 age cohort believe “people exaggerate how bad the Holocaust actually was” compared to 2 percent of those above 65.
A mere 21 percent of voters aged 18-34 agreed with the notion that Jews experience the bulk of hate crimes in the US, compared to 40 percent of overall voters. Various surveys indicate that Jews have faced the greatest increase in hate crimes over the past two years.
Uncategorized
Columbia Graduate Students Amend Complaint Against Union Dominated by Anti-Zionist Bosses
Protesters gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall, in New York City, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
Students at Columbia University are escalating their fight against a graduate workers union dominated by anti-Israel advocates, having recently updated a federal complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last year to include new troubling accusations.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the students allege that the bosses who run Student Workers of Columbia (SWC), an affiliate of United Auto Workers (UAW), devote more energy and resources to pursuing “radical policy proposals” than improving occupational conditions. In collective bargaining negotiations, it allegedly pressures the university to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and to enact other measures, such as ending its partnership with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and closing a dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response, the students formed the Graduate Researchers Against Discrimination and Suppression (Columbia GRADS) organization and petitioned the NLRB to rein the SWC in.
The National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), which represents the petitioning students has told The Algemeiner that the SWC subjects students to abuses which magnify problems inherent in compulsory union membership.
The amended complaint enumerates a slew of new examples, including that the SWC, under the threat of a strike, has demanded that the university dismantle CCTV security cameras, proclaim the campus a “sanctuary space” for illegal immigrants, and revoke the authority of public safety officers to detain and arrest students who pose a danger to themselves and others.
“The charges point out that many of these demands are so radical that even the SWC’s parent union, the UAW, has directed the SWC union to retract them,” the group said. “The UAW has also demanded, to no avail, that the SWC union drop its strike threats over these topics, as striking over such extraneous demands is a violation of federal labor law.”
It added, “The charges declare that these actions discriminate against Columbia GRADS and constitute bad-faith bargaining, all of which is prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act.”
“Under the National Labor Relations Act, the only bargaining that is required for a good faith sit down is over mandatory subjects of bargaining such as wages, hours, benefits, and the like,” NRTW staff attorney Glenn Taubman, told The Algemeiner during an interview on Wednesday.” Everything else is either a permissive subject, meaning the parties can choose to bargain or not…what is going on here is the union is trying to force Columbia to bargain over things that are permissive at best, and the items in dispute don’t really benefit the employees that they purport to represent. Instead the union is using bargaining to push an ideological agenda against Israel.”
He added, “All of this adds up to a union that is out of control, and I note that they don’t have an agenda against the Mullahs in Iran, against the dictator who runs Turkey, against the Chinese Communists who oppress their citizens or the North Koreans. But they have an agenda against Israel, the one democracy in the Middle East.”
The SWC is not the only higher education union sidelining important objectives to pursue politics and anti-Zionist policies which cross the line into antisemitism. In a letter sent to Congress in August, NRTW said the problem is also present in unions affiliated with United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE).
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.