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
NYC synagogue protest bill tasks police with developing a protection plan. Mamdani still hasn’t committed to sign
The New York City Council has ditched a proposal for a strict up to 100-foot buffer zone for protests outside houses of worship and instead aims to direct the NYPD to develop a plan outlining how it would protect congregants from constitutionally protected protests.
The changes come in the face of reservations from Mayor Zohran Mamdani as well as civil liberties groups that have raised concerns that the measure could limit First Amendment rights.
Michael Gerber, the police department’s deputy commissioner for legal affairs, told council members Wednesday that the NYPD will craft a framework that carefully weighs constitutional considerations, balancing public safety with free speech rights and establishing clear procedures for managing protests.
The bill, introduced by Council Speaker Julie Menin, follows disruptive demonstrations at synagogues that targeted events promoting land sales in Israel and settlements and featured antisemitic slogans and chants. It initially proposed creating a perimeter of up to 100 feet to ensure access to services and events without harassment or being blocked at the door.
It is part of the Council speaker’s five-point plan to combat antisemitism, in conjunction with a new task force she appointed, as anti-Jewish incidents continue to account for a majority of reported hate crimes in New York City. In recent months, at least two protests outside synagogues featured antisemitic slogans and chants, heightening tensions and drawing condemnation. Last month, a person rammed a car into an entrance of the Chabad-Lubavitch world headquarters in Brooklyn.
Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, who, like Menin, is Jewish, reportedly cautioned that a one-size-fits-all rule might not withstand legal challenge and could prove unworkable across neighborhoods with vastly different street layouts. Mamdani said he ordered his law department and police leadership to review the proposal’s legality. On his first day in office, Mamdani revoked an executive order issued by former Mayor Eric Adams in December that called on Tisch to evaluate proposals for establishing a buffer zone of at least 15 feet outside houses of worship.
Mamdani cited Tisch’s concerns in an interview with CNN earlier this week when asked for his position on the bill.
However, after internal discussions, the Council agreed to revise the language of the bill, placing implementation authority squarely with the police department rather than codifying a specific distance requirement.
Free speech protections
At a hearing by the newly created Committee to Combat Hate, Gerber, one of Tisch’s Jewish deputies, said the NYPD supports the legislation — describing the buffer as a “frozen zone.” — and is committed to transparency. The department will ensure protesters retain “sight and sound to the entrance of that location consistent with the First Amendment,” he said, referencing the right to peacefully protest. “At the same time, the protesters will not be permitted to obstruct, impede or interfere.” He added that demonstrators who enter frozen zones could be subject to arrest.
In response to questioning from Councilmember Shahana Hanif of Brooklyn, an Israel critic, Gerber said that anti-Zionist and antisemitic slogans, “with some extremely narrow exceptions,” will be safeguarded. He pointed to the 1977 neo-Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois, which the court said was protected speech.
Mainstream Jewish groups that testified, including the Anti-Defamation League, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council, said they back the bill. At a rally held inside City Hall Wednesday morning, two Muslim imams and a Catholic clergyman also voiced their support.
The progressive group Jews For Racial & Economic Justice, which endorsed Mamdani through its affiliated political arm, and other groups supportive of the Palestinian cause, are lobbying Council members to oppose the bill. Mamdani, at an unrelated press conference, said the amended bill is a “distinct shift” from the original proposal but declined to commit to signing it until he sees its “final version.” A City Hall spokesperson referred back to the mayor’s comments when asked by the Forward whether the new language addressed his concerns.
At the hearing, Menin addressed what she described as “misconceptions” about the measure. “The First Amendment freedom of speech is truly sacrosanct, and it is a freedom that these bills will uphold,” Menin said. “What we will not allow people to do is abuse that freedom to harass and intimidate others outside religious and educational institutions.”
The council speaker said the November 19, 2025 demonstration outside Manhattan’s Park East Synagogue, which hosted an event promoting migration to Israel, “was not a peaceful protest.”
The legislation is “absolutely needed,” Menin said, to ensure that such demonstrations never happen again. “We can’t brush that under the rug,” she said. “I think any suggestion that the bills aren’t needed is just minimizing what the impact has been to the Jewish community.”
Gov. Kathy Hochul recently introduced similar legislation, which would create a 25-foot buffer zone around houses of worship across New York State.
The post NYC synagogue protest bill tasks police with developing a protection plan. Mamdani still hasn’t committed to sign appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
80 Years After the Holocaust, Did Antisemitism Disappear? Or Did Anti-Zionism Replace It?
A German and Israeli flag fly, on the day Chancellor Friedrich Merz meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog for talks, in Berlin, Germany, May 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Liesa Johannssen
There is a comforting narrative circulating in Western discourse. It insists that the surge of anti-Israel activism we see today is nothing more than political engagement. We are told it is about policy disagreements, about borders, about governments and human rights. We are assured it has nothing to do with Jews as Jews.
Yet over and over again, the façade cracks. Beneath the slogans and hashtags, something much older surfaces. What presents itself as principled opposition to a state too often reveals itself as hostility toward a people.
For centuries, Jews have been blamed for calamities that had nothing to do with them. During the Black Death in medieval Europe, Jewish communities were accused of poisoning wells and spreading plague. These lies triggered massacres. In times of disease and social instability, fear sought an outlet and found it in the Jewish minority.
The pattern did not end there. Blood libels claimed that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals. Jews were portrayed as shadowy financiers manipulating global markets, engineering wars, and controlling governments. These were not fringe ideas whispered in dark corners. They were preached from pulpits, embedded in political rhetoric, and woven into cultural narratives.
The consequences were catastrophic. The expulsions from European kingdoms. The pogroms that swept across Eastern Europe and parts of the Middle East all the way up until the 1900s. The 1929 massacre in Hebron, where Jews were slaughtered in their homes. And ultimately the Holocaust, orchestrated by the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler, in which six million Jews were systematically murdered. Each era insisted it was responding to some new threat. Each era recycled ancient accusations.
Many antisemites now claim they only oppose Israel — but are we really supposed to believe that 80 years after 1/3 of every Jew on Earth was murdered, that antisemitism has disappeared and this is all about Israel?
Modern terrorism continued the pattern. At the 1972 Munich Olympics, members of the Israeli team were murdered in cold blood. In 1985, during the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, a Jewish passenger was singled out and killed. In 1976, Jewish hostages were separated from others in Entebbe before a dramatic rescue operation. And on October 7, 2023, Israeli civilians were massacred in their homes, children were abducted, and elderly people were dragged into Gaza by Hamas. Once again, Jews were targeted not for what they had done as individuals, but for who they were.
Each time, the world proclaims never again. Each time, hatred finds new language.
That’s why most “anti-Zionism” is just antisemitic logic repackaged for the digital age.
The intellectual dishonesty extends further. Marginal sects such as Neturei Karta are frequently showcased as the authentic voice of Judaism because they oppose the State of Israel. This tiny, fringe group does not represent mainstream Jewish communities in Israel or the Diaspora. Yet their images are amplified to suggest that “real Jews” reject Jewish self determination. It is not an honest engagement with Jewish diversity. It is a strategy to legitimize hostility.
In online spaces, the pattern is unmistakable. Comment sections filled with recycled tropes about Jewish control of media, finance, and politics are everywhere. Every geopolitical development is reframed as evidence of a hidden Jewish hand. Emotional accusations drown out factual context. In the age of algorithms, outrage spreads faster than correction. A sensational claim travels further than a careful explanation.
None of this means that Israel is beyond criticism. But there is a difference between criticism and much of what is happening now.
The State of Israel was established after centuries in which Jews lacked sovereignty and paid for that vulnerability with blood. It emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, when the absence of refuge proved fatal. To reduce its existence to colonial ambition is to erase Jewish history and the lived reality of exile, persecution, and statelessness.
Antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism is not diminishing. It is intensifying across university campuses, in activist movements, and in mainstream conversation. The vocabulary may sound modern, but the underlying message echoes the past. Jews are uniquely malevolent. Jews are collectively responsible. Jews are the problem.
The antidote is not censorship but clarity. Historical literacy matters. Facts matter. Calling out antisemitic tropes when they appear, even when wrapped in fashionable language, is not an attempt to silence dissent. It is a defense of truth and moral consistency.
The lesson of history is neither abstract nor distant. When antisemitism is trivialized or excused, it spreads. When it is confronted with moral seriousness and factual rigor, it loses legitimacy. If we are sincere in our commitment to a world where Jews are not scapegoats for every crisis, then we must recognize that anti-Zionism too often serves as the latest vessel for the oldest hatred.
The responsibility to say so belongs to all of us.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
Uncategorized
Israel, AIPAC Take Center Stage in Competitive US Congressional Primary
Aug. 12, 2025, Chicago, Illinois, US: Daniel Biss, mayor of Evanston, Illinois, attends a rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago after the announcement that the Trump administration has unilaterally ended the collective bargaining agreement with federal unions. Photo: Chicago Tribune via ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Leading candidates in a hotly contested open-seat Democratic primary for US Congress are dueling over support for Israel and the country’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, which have become key focal points of the race.
Tensions have been simmering for months but escalated after a super PAC known as Elect Chicago Women — which is reportedly supported by donors tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — began airing its first attack ad in Illinois’ 9th Congressional District last weekend. The ad accused progressive Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss of being “willing to say anything to get elected.”
Elect Chicago Women has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on broadcast television attacking Biss and more than $2 million boosting moderate state Sen. Laura Fine, according to federal filings.
The political action committee has not publicly disclosed its donors ahead of the primary, fueling complaints from Biss and other candidates about covert influence in the contest.
In a statement on Sunday, the Biss campaign stated that voters “won’t be fooled by these slimy dark money ads, and they won’t allow right-wing special interests to pick our next member of Congress.”
The next day, Biss released an attack ad targeting Fine for receiving money from supporters of AIPAC, which Biss’s campaign described as a “Trump-aligned, pro-Netanyahu” group, referring to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ad also said that AIPAC was aligned with “MAGA,” or Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.
AIPAC is a prominent lobbying group that seeks to foster bipartisan support for the US-Israel alliance. Despite making bipartisanship a key tenet of its work, AIPAC has in recent years become a favorite target of left-wing, Democratic activists and politicians.
Before the latest dueling ads, the clash in Illinois’ 9th District spilled into a candidate forum hosted by the Pink Poster Club last week in Evanston, where contenders were asked directly whether they accept contributions from AIPAC or longtime AIPAC supporters.
Fine was the only candidate on stage to say yes. She clarified that she has not received money directly from AIPAC itself but has accepted donations from individuals who support the group, as well as from some Republican donors. AIPAC has not formally endorsed any candidates in the race.
Nonetheless, Biss seized on Fine’s distinction, arguing that Democratic voters should question why right-leaning and pro-Israel special-interest donors are investing heavily in a Democratic primary. He has framed the super PAC spending as an attempt by outside forces to purchase the seat and shape the district’s representation on foreign policy.
Fine was also the sole candidate last week to respond “yes” to supporting continued military assistance for Israel.
Other rivals echoed concerns about transparency and influence, but it was Biss who most forcefully made policy toward Israel and AIPAC-aligned spending a centerpiece of his critique.
Fine has pushed back, saying the attacks mischaracterize both her record and her motivations. She points to her legislative work in Springfield on issues such as abortion rights, health-care access, and environmental protection, arguing that her support is grounded in her progressive credentials.
She has also emphasized her longstanding ties to the local Jewish community, a significant constituency in the district, and said backing from pro-Israel donors reflects shared values, not outside control. Supporters argue that strong US–Israel relations are a mainstream Democratic position and that accepting donations from pro-Israel individuals does not conflict with progressive priorities.
Fine and her campaign have denied any coordination with outside groups and contend that Biss is unfairly singling out Jewish and pro-Israel donors for political gain. Moreover, Fine has taken aim at Biss for his supposed connections with conservative donors.
“Daniel Biss has relied on Republican donors for years and voters are sick of politicians who say whatever it takes to win an election,” Fine’s campaign said in a statement.
At last week’s forum, Fine said she was “sick and tired of being Dan-splained,” noting that Biss met with AIPAC officials multiple times before rebuking their involvement in the race.
“When they said, ‘We don’t trust you,’ he changed his tune again. And that’s not a surprise, because he’ll tell one group one thing and another group another,” Fine said.
Another candidate in the race, Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old Palestinian-American social media personality who has repeatedly accused Israel of so-called “genocide” in Gaza, also slammed Biss for previously meeting with AIPAC officials.
Biss currently leads the primary with 24 percent support among voters, according to a new poll commissioned by the Evanston RoundTable and conducted by Public Policy Polling, a firm affiliated with the Democratic Party. He was followed by Abughazaleh at 17 percent and Fine at 16 percent, with nearly a quarter of voters still undecided.
In the open competition to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Fine has sought to establish herself as the most Israel-friendly candidate, stressing the importance of Israel’s self-defense and the importance of continuing the American alliance with the Jewish state.
Biss, who is Jewish, has taken a harsher stance against Israel, issuing sharpened criticisms of the Jewish state’s conduct in Gaza. Though Biss has stated that he supports Israel and has expressed desire for continuing the alliance between Washington and Jerusalem, he has condemned the Netanyahu government and called for increased restrictions on US military aid. However, the mayor also spent large stretches of his childhood in Israel and has expressed a generally positive sentiment toward the nation and its people.
Nonetheless, Biss has promised not to accept any funding or support from AIPAC, accusing the prominent lobbying group of having “MAGA-aligned donors” and arguing that accepting its support would force him to “compromise” his progressive values.
Last month, US Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, penned a letter demanding answers from Biss, accusing him of failing to protect Jewish students during a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel encampment at Northwestern University that, lawmakers say, devolved into widespread antisemitic harassment and violence. Northwestern’s campus is located in Evanston.
Illinois’ 9th District, long represented by progressive stalwarts, is heavily Democratic and includes Evanston and Chicago’s North Side. In such a deep-blue seat, the winner of the March primary will be the overwhelming favorite to win the general election.