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
9 Israeli Soldiers Injured in Lebanon Fighting, 2 in Serious Condition
Two IDF soldiers. Photo: IDF.
i24 News – Two Israeli officers were seriously wounded and seven additional soldiers injured in two separate incidents in southern Lebanon, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said.
According to the military, the first incident occurred during the morning hours amid an encounter between Israeli forces and armed militants operating in the area.
During the engagement, an anti-tank missile was launched toward deployed troops, which the IDF said was fired by Hezbollah operatives. Two officers were struck in the attack, with one sustaining serious injuries and the second moderately wounded.
A second incident took place overnight in a separate sector of southern Lebanon, when Israeli forces operating in the area came under rocket fire. In that strike, one officer was seriously wounded and six soldiers were moderately injured, the IDF said.
The incidents come amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, marked by repeated exchanges of fire and periodic ground confrontations in southern Lebanon.
Uncategorized
Report: Some 30 US Troops Injured in Iranian Attacks on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi
Screenshot of video of Saudi Arabia’s Air Force intercepts Iranian drones over Saudi airspace. Photo: Saudi Defense Ministry / Screenshot
i24 News – Over 12 US troops have been injured in Iranian attacks on a Saudi air base in the past week, the Associated Press reported on Saturday citing two people who have been briefed on the matter.
On Friday, the Islamic Republic launched six ballistic missiles and 29 drones at Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan air base, wounding at least 15 troops, including five seriously, according to the sources who spoke to AP on the condition of anonymity.
US officials initially reported that at least 10 US troops were injured, including two seriously wounded.
The base had come under attack twice earlier this week, including an incident that injured 14 US troops, according to the people who had been briefed on the matter.
Located some 100 kilometers from the Saudi capital of Riyadh, the base is run by the Royal Saudi Air Force, but is also used by US troops.
Uncategorized
At CPAC, a Generational Divide Over Republican Support for Israel
Gabriel Khuly, 19, and Joshua-Caleb Barton, 31, pose for a picture outside Generation Zion’s booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) USA 2026 at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center, in Grapevine, Texas, U.S., March 27, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone. REUTERS/Nathan Layne
When former Congressman Matt Gaetz opened his speech by aligning with a Republican faction “loyal to only one nation,” his message to the Conservative Political Action Conference was clear: It was a veiled swipe at perceived Israeli influence over US politicians, even without naming Israel outright.
A month into the US-Israeli war with Iran, Gaetz’s comments struck a discordant note at the annual CPAC event. They cut against calls for unity and exposed a growing Republican rift largely along generational lines, as younger conservatives increasingly question support for Israel.
That skepticism reflects a broader distrust of military intervention among younger Republicans, fueled in part by conservative figures such as Tucker Carlson, whose allegations of excessive Israeli influence on US policy have drawn accusations that he is stoking antisemitism. Carlson has repeatedly denied accusations of antisemitism.
The Iran war, including Israel’s role in it, emerged as one of the main flashpoints at CPAC, which for decades has served as a central gathering for Republican politicians and activists.
Jack Posobiec, a conservative commentator and online influencer, said age 45 is a dividing line, with the younger cohort more likely to question the party’s steadfast support of Israel.
“People want to paint it off as if it’s antisemitism, but I don’t think that’s what it is,” Posobiec told Reuters. “It’s just a question of: Why? What is the purpose of this relationship? And I hear that a lot from young voters.”
The issue has roiled the Democratic Party in recent weeks, with some lawmakers and primary candidates distancing themselves from the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC amid growing unease over Israel’s military actions.
It is now exposing fault lines among Republicans as well, turning off young voters who helped propel Trump to victory in 2024 and potentially complicating the party’s efforts to defend slim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives heading into November’s midterm elections.
Noah Bundy, 17, and Ryder Gerrald, 18, conservative friends from Georgia attending their first CPAC, said they opposed the war with Iran and questioned whether the military operation put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.
“I think they totally pushed us into a war with Iran,” Bundy said. “My whole family is military and none of us is really for it.”
“Our younger generation, we don’t like Israel as much compared to the older generation,” said Gerrald. He said he would prefer redirecting US taxpayer dollars toward domestic priorities, rather than spending to bolster Israel’s military.
EVANGELICAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL
The party’s pro-Israel stance, however, resonates strongly with evangelicals – a pillar of Trump’s political base – and with older voters like Harry Strine III, an 83-year-old CPAC attendee who was wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat.
“Israel is God’s people,” Strine said. “The US was founded on the Judeo-Christian belief. I guess I’m a traditionalist.”
On the conference’s opening day, Rev. Franklin Graham said that, by striking Iran to protect Israel, President Donald Trump was like the biblical figure of Esther, a Jewish queen who, according to scripture, was elevated by God to save her people from annihilation in ancient Persia.
“I believe God has raised him up for a time such as this, like Queen Esther,” said Graham, a prominent Christian evangelist, invoking a core evangelical belief that the modern state of Israel represents the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
But unease over the Iran war and rising gasoline prices has pushed Trump’s approval rating down to 36% – its lowest since his return to the White House – a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Monday found. Support among his core base remains strong, however, with 74% of Republicans backing the strikes on Iran.
The debate over Israel coincides with a broader Republican fight over the future of the MAGA movement and who belongs in it. Allegations of antisemitism flared at a December event organized by Turning Point USA, a nonprofit focused on promoting conservative politics. At its first national event since founder Charlie Kirk’s death, commentator Ben Shapiro criticized fellow conservatives for associating with figures like white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes, who has praised Hitler.
In his CPAC speech on Thursday, Gaetz said he did not agree with Shapiro and other conservative commentators “that we have some sort of near slavish loyalty to a country in a faraway land,” an apparent reference to Israel.
He argued that conservatives needed to allow for disagreements and that “antisemitism isn’t hiding around every corner and in every bush.”
Visitors to the CPAC booth of Generation Zion, a nonprofit group that trains young Christians and Jews to advocate for Israel and to combat antisemitism, could pick up a sticker reading “Tucker Carlson Hates Me,” a rebuke of the commentator’s recent criticism of Christian Zionism and Israel’s alleged sway over U.S. politics.
Gabriel Khuly, a 19-year-old volunteer for the group, said that while the Republican Party has an antisemitism problem, it is driven by a small minority with an outsized voice online.
“The actual anti-Israel, antisemitic wing of the Republican Party, I think, makes itself seem a lot bigger than it really is.”