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
UNC Student Newspaper Publishes Tropes About Jews and Money
In May 2024, Students for Justice in Palestine poured red paint which resembles spilled blood on the steps of the South Building, an office for administrative staff and the chancellor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Photo: UNCSJP/Screenshot
The Daily Tar Heel, the student-led newspaper of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, recently featured commentary that some view as antisemitic.
On Feb. 26, Kyle Bublic began a column by writing, “The 2022 congressional race for North Carolina’s 4th District was puppeteered by the wallet of Benjamin Netanyahu, as he whisked away the last of our previously honest lawmakers with American Israel Public Affairs Committee money.”
The American Jewish Committee explains why it is antisemitic to allege that Jews are political puppet masters:
Myths of control portray Jews as secret puppet masters, ruling over others and manipulating the world’s economies and governments. For centuries, Jews were blamed for controlling world events behind the scenes, leading “blind” leaders into wars and debt to enrich themselves and further their own hidden agenda …
The imagery of Jewish leaders pulling the strings of politicians was featured in Nazi propaganda … Antisemitic propaganda continues to spread the idea that rich or influential Jews are behind the scenes conspiring to further their plans of world domination.
It is a serious matter to state or imply that the Prime Minister of Israel is in any way financing or directing an American election. According to Congress, “Federal campaign finance law and regulation prohibits foreign money in U.S. elections.”
I reached out to five of the paper’s editors for comment. None responded.
Later in his column, the op-ed’s author repeated the antisemitic puppet master trope, writing:
While I would like to imagine Israel’s investment into Durham and Orange County was driven by their prime minister’s love for Cosmic Cantina [a local restaurant], it seems like his motivation was more nefarious. Nida Allam, Foushee’s most fearsome competitor in the 2022 election, represented everything that makes our puppet masters shudder — a principled and young candidate fighting under a truly progressive ticket.
The student column focused on the primary election in NC’s 4th Congressional district held last week between Democratic Congressional incumbent Valerie Foushee and her challenger, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. Israel became a major focus of this Democratic primary, with anti-Israel radicals embracing Allam.
I previously reported that in 2018, Allam tweeted, “This is the United States of Israel,” which is consistent with centuries-old antisemitic propaganda that Jews seek to dominate the world. Allam ended up issuing a public apology for her antisemitism.
The Daily Tar Heel endorsed Allam in the Nov. 3 primary. Foushee narrowly beat Allam in the election.
UNC Professor of Medicine and longtime Jewish communal leader, Dr. Adam Goldstein, told me:
It’s truly disappointing to see the UNC student newspaper endorsing a partisan description of a Congressional race in 2026 as “puppeteered by the wallet of Benjamin Netanyahu’” in 2022, with references to “Bibi’s pockets.”Such descriptions echo longstanding antisemitic tropes portraying Jews as secretly controlling political systems through money. This moves beyond criticism of a current candidate’s policies into shameful demonization of a longtime progressive Congresswoman, and those that support her, through language that is itself manipulative and corrupting.
The Daily Tar Heel’s policy page claims that it seeks “to be a leader in espousing the ethical standards of the industry [and] to serve as a beacon of journalistic integrity.” Yet, the paper fails UNC students, our community, and the people of North Carolina, by allowing these tropes about Jews and money in its pages.
Peter Reitzes writes about antisemitism in North Carolina and beyond.
Uncategorized
CNN Shames Itself By Shilling for Iran
Images of Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei and late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are displayed at a gathering to support Mojtaba Khamenei, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 9, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
There’s a reason why the Iranian regime, which murdered thousands of its own citizens just months ago, only allowed one American network access to the country. It picked CNN, because it thought it would get coverage either that was favorable in some way, or at least not critical.
We are no longer in the era of Mike Wallace. Not long after Ayatollah Khomeini took over in 1979, Wallace interviewed him in Iran. Wallace had the guts to mention that Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat called him a disgrace to Islam and a “lunatic.” The Ayatollah responded by saying that Sadat was not a Muslim and was united with their enemies. He called for the people of Egypt to overthrow Sadat. Sadat was assassinated two years later.
Wallace sat on the floor during the interview, as did the Ayatollah, and asked if he could go visit the American hostages and talk to them. He was refused.
Back to now. CNN’s Frederik Pleitgen interviewed shopkeepers who said they were scared for their lives because there were bombs.
Of course, none of the people Pleitgen would interview are capable of criticizing the regime, or they’d be beaten or killed. Pleitgen himself might be killed if he reports anything the regime doesn’t want. The reports do include the line: “CNN operated in Iran only with government permission.” But that’s meaningless.
There is value to being on the scene in a war zone, but CNN, which gets much of its ratings from bashing Trump, will no doubt find citizens who will curse Trump. And no one they talk to will support the war in any way. Is simply putting in a line that you are reporting only with the permission of the government good enough? Do the ends justify the means in this case?
Pleitgen reported that “oil-filled rain” is falling from the sky. Is he able to report on what the true process was for the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new leader? Doubtful. What about the real number of its citizens they killed? Of course, they won’t get that. What about why they apologized for striking Gulf countries, and then continued to do so? If we won’t get any real answers to real questions, why is CNN really there — other than to do the bidding of the Iranian regime?
What is surprising is that I thought they’d send the CNN reporter to the girls school that was said to have been hit by American forces. Why not let him speak with some of the parents whose children have been killed? One would think this is exactly what Iran would want. That they have not done so raises suspicions. Was it a school not marked as a school, as part of an Revolutionary Guard Corps facility? Are there some discrepancies Iran doesn’t want the world to know?
It goes without saying that there is propaganda from every country in a war. It’s not always easy to get to the truth, and all countries only want certain information to be public. I’d like to know more about the Iranian ship sunk by America. Was it really unarmed when it was coming back from exercises with India? That’s what Iran says, but the US says that’s a lie. How about an interview with one of the 32 who survived? That would be an interesting interview.
If you’re going to report from an enemy country in war, can you at least have some unique and engaging content? It will be interesting to see if CNN decides to leave Iran, realizing their reputation will be hurt and it’s not worth it to aid an enemy’s propaganda war.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
Self-Reliance Is Israel’s Strategic Imperative
A US Marines F-35C Lightning II is staged for flight operations on the flight deck of the US Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of the Operation Epic Fury attack on Iran from an undisclosed location March 3, 2026. Photo: US Navy/Handout via REUTERS
History has taught the Jewish people many painful lessons, but perhaps the most enduring one is this: survival can never depend entirely on the goodwill of others. Alliances matter. Partnerships strengthen nations. But the responsibility for defending the Jewish state ultimately rests with Israel itself.
For decades, the alliance between Israel and the United States has been a cornerstone of Israel’s national security. This partnership has saved lives and deterred wars. Yet responsible leadership requires looking forward, not backward.
The global order is shifting. The United States faces growing domestic polarization, rising debt, and strategic competition with China that increasingly dominates its foreign policy priorities. Within parts of American political discourse, support for foreign aid in general, and Israel in particular, is no longer a consensus issue. While bipartisan support for Israel remains somewhat in place at the institutional level, the tone and intensity of the debate have changed.
This does not mean America is abandoning Israel. But it does mean that Israel cannot afford complacency.
The Jewish State was founded in the shadow of embargoes and isolation. In 1948, when the newborn nation faced invasion, it did not enjoy the luxury of dependable suppliers. Those early experiences forged a national doctrine of self-reliance. Over the decades, Israel built one of the most advanced defense industries in the world — precisely because it understood that sovereignty without military independence is fragile.
Today, Israel produces cutting edge missile defense systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow. It leads globally in unmanned aerial systems, cyber capabilities, electronic warfare, and advanced battlefield technologies. Israeli defense exports reach Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, including countries that once viewed Israel as an adversary. Innovation is not merely an economic asset for Israel. It is a strategic necessity.
However, critical dependencies remain. Israel does not manufacture its own fifth generation fighter jets. Its air force relies heavily on American platforms such as the F-35 and F-15. Certain precision munitions and key components are sourced from abroad. Moreover, financial frameworks tied to foreign military assistance inevitably create political considerations beyond Israel’s direct control.
If the geopolitical winds shift, even slightly, those dependencies could become vulnerabilities.
Recognizing this reality does not diminish the importance of Israel’s alliances. It strengthens them.
Israel must accelerate investment in domestic production of critical munitions, expand its aerospace capabilities, and secure independent supply chains for raw materials and advanced components. It must ensure that during prolonged conflict, it can sustain itself without waiting for external political approvals. This is not an act of isolation. It is an act of national responsibility.
Israel cannot gamble its security on the internal debates of other nations, however friendly they may be. The Jewish people returned to their homeland to reclaim agency over their destiny. That agency must extend to every dimension of national defense.
In a region where weakness invites aggression, strength guarantees peace. The strongest message Israel can send to both allies and adversaries is clear: we value partnership, but our security will never be outsourced.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.