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
Anti-Israel Streamer Hasan Piker Reaffirms Hamas Support
Hasan Piker. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Controversial streamer Hasan Piker raised eyebrows Monday after reaffirming his support for the Hamas terrorist group during an interview on the popular left-wing podcast “Pod Save America.”
While speaking with Jon Favreau, former speechwriter to US President Barack Obama, Piker doubled down on his assertion that Hamas is a preferable governing entity compared to Israel.
“This [quote] is from January,” Favreau said while reflecting on previous comments made by the streamer. “‘Hamas is a thousand times better than a fascist settler colonial apartheid state.”
“I stand by that,” Piker responded.
Favreau then asked Piker to clarify whether his comments were genuine or hyperbolic.
“[T]his is the one that bothered me most when I first heard it …. Even if you believe what happened in Gaza is genocide and what’s happening in the West Bank is apartheid, those are different claims from ‘Hamas is a thousand times better,’ because Hamas is an organization that has massacred, raped, kidnapped civilians on Oct. 7,” the former Obama speechwriter said, referring to Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel in 2023. “They’ve also been catastrophic for Palestinians by almost every measure … Do you actually mean that or is that a rhetorical move or like a solidarity signal?”
“I mean, it’s all of the above. I do mean it,” Piker affirmed. “I’m a lesser-evil voter and therefore I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.”
Jon Favreau: “When you say Hamas is a thousand times better, do you mean that?”
Hasan Piker: “I do mean it … I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.” pic.twitter.com/1dNxvOGslo
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) April 13, 2026
Hamas, which openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews, has launched a brutal crackdown on dissent among fellow Palestinians in recent months. Social media videos widely circulated online show Hamas members brutally beating Palestinians and carrying out public executions of alleged collaborators with Israel and rival militia members.
Piker also suggested that Hamas is “entirely comprised” of orphaned children whose parents were killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — remarks that critics say distort reality and risk minimizing the group’s violent actions. He framed Hamas as a product of trauma, arguing that many of its members are driven by personal loss tied to Israeli military operations. The comments quickly drew backlash from analysts, policymakers, and pro-Israel advocates, who say the characterization is both factually inaccurate and morally problematic.
Piker continued, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and repudiating Zionism as “an ethno-religious supremacist ideology that is exterminationist.”
The US and several countries around the world designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, kidnapped 251 hostages, and perpetrated widespread sexual violence during their rampage
Piker’s remarks are the latest in a series of contentious statements on Israel and the broader Middle East, which have drawn scrutiny from both media watchdogs and political figures. His large online following has amplified the impact of his commentary, fueling debate over the responsibility of digital influencers in shaping public understanding of global conflicts.
Piker has drawn immense scrutiny in recent months as his popularity has surged and mainstream Democratic politicians have increasingly appeared on his livestream show.
Beyond Hamas, Piker has also expressed support for authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, and Iran.
Uncategorized
Iran Executed More People in 2025 Than Any Year in Nearly Four Decades, NGOs Find
A February 2023 protest in Washington, DC calling for an end to executions and human rights violations in Iran. Photo: Reuters/ Bryan Olin Dozier
The Islamic regime in Iran has continued to accelerate its execution machine into a steady grind of state-ordered killings, now rising again to a peak unseen since 1989.
According to a joint-annual report released by the European groups Iran Human Rights (IHR) in Norway and Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM) in France, Iran executed at least 1,639 people in 2025, a 68 percent leap from the 975 killed in 2024 and the highest seen since tracking began in 2008. All known executions were reportedly conducted by hanging.
The number of executed women also rose to 48, a jump from 31 in 2024. Courts convicted 21 of these women for murdering their husbands or fiancés.
The figure of 1,639 human beings represents an average of four executions each day; however, IHR warns that the full body count is likely much higher, as the group requires two sources to confirm an execution.
“By creating fear through an average of four to five executions per day in 2025, authorities tried to prevent new protests and prolong their crumbling rule,” IHR director Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam said in a statement.
“The death penalty in Iran is used as a political tool of oppression and repression, with ethnic minorities and other marginalized groups disproportionately represented among those executed,” added Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, executive director of ECPM.
The report cites the higher levels of executions targeting Sunni Muslims such as Kurds in the west and Baluch in the southeast.
A significant number of executions involved non-lethal offenses, with nearly half of documented executions – 747 people – convicted of drug crimes. While most executions took place inside prisons, the number of public hangings more than tripled to 11.
The report begins with a foreword written on Feb. 20 by human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh. On April 1, Iranian police arrested her and today her whereabouts remain unknown.
Beginning by noting that Iran has ranked highest in executions per capita for many years and remains one of the highest for total killings, Sotoudeh writes that “the reasons for opposing the inhuman punishment of execution are so clear that they hardly require repetition. Nevertheless, governments such as the Islamic Republic of Iran often invoke public opinion to justify this inhuman punishment.”
Sotoudeh explains that the regime justifies executing murderers and drug traffickers because of a supposed public demand, “as though that settles the matter.” She points out that historically executions can rise after revolutions following dictatorships.
“We experienced this ourselves within the past half-century. After the 1979 Revolution, many officers and senior officials of the monarchy were executed without fair trials,” Sotoudeh writes. “Yet the cycle of violence did not end, and the execution machine went on to claim the lives of others, including those who had contributed to the revolution’s victory. This cycle has not ceased to this day, nearly half a century later, and has in fact accelerated.”
Invoking one of history’s most famous victims of unjust execution, Sotoudeh adds, “This is precisely why death sentences should never be issued under the influence of public opinion. Socrates, too, was sentenced to death at the age of 70 by a vote of the Athenian majority and chose to drink the cup of poison rather than leave Athens.”
The report reveals the extent to which the regime has sought to conceal its bloody hands. Official government sources only announced 113 executions (less than 7 percent), down from 9.7 percent in 2024 and 15 percent in 2023.
Rape is a capital offense in Iran, with 37 people killed after convictions. The report notes that “as in previous years, people accused of crimes were tortured and forced to confess. Criminal convictions are frequently based on information extracted under torture.”
The execution increase established in 2025 appears to have continued into 2026.
On Monday, for example, the Human Rights Activist News Agency announced that Judge Iman Afshari of the Tehran Revolutionary Court had sentenced to death protesters Mohammadreza Majidi-Asl, Bita Hemmati, Behrouz Zamaninejad, and Kourosh Zamaninejad.
The charges which Afshari judged as worthy of execution included “destruction of public property,” “chanting protest slogans,” “throwing objects including bottles, concrete blocks, and incendiary materials from rooftops,” and “participation in protest gatherings on Jan. 8 and 9, 2026.”
The Iranian regime unleashed a brutal, nationwide crackdown on anti-government protesters in January, resulting in the deaths and arrests of tens of thousands of people. Activists fear that many of those detained will be executed.
The report cites Max du Plessis, a UN Fact-Finding Mission expert, who said in October after observing the increase in killings, “if executions form part of a widespread and systemic attack against a civilian population, as a matter of policy, then those responsible – including the judges who impose capital punishment – may be held accountable for crimes against humanity.”
Uncategorized
Hampshire College closure reverberates for alumni who treasured a Yiddishist hub
Hampshire College, once a hub for Yiddish scholarship thanks to its proximity to the Yiddish Book Center, will close by the end of the year amid financial challenges.
The Yiddish Book Center will not be affected by the closure, said spokesperson Rebecka McDougall, noting that the Yiddish Book Center owns its land and building, located adjacent to campus.
Even so, the closure signals the end of an era for Yiddishists who found their footing at Hampshire. Among its alumni are Yiddish singer Miryem-Khaye Seigel, the Yiddish Book Center’s academic director Madeleine (Mindl) Cohen, and the Forward’s archivist, Chana Pollack.
“It connected me to other people that were very instrumental to my broader Yiddish interests,” said Lana Adler, a 2013 Hampshire graduate who went on to work at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, which houses the largest collection of Yiddish-language works in the world. “It was an incredibly important space for Yiddish.”
Hampshire and Yiddish
Founded in 1970 in Amherst, Massachusetts, Hampshire College was conceived as an experiment in alternative education, offering self-designed concentrations instead of traditional majors and “narrative evaluations” rather than grades.
A decade later, it became home to a major Yiddish revival effort when alum Aaron Lansky returned to found the Yiddish Book Center. Alarmed that American Jews were discarding irreplaceable Yiddish books, Lansky set out to save them.
New York City seemed the obvious base. But mentors warned he might “get swallowed up” among the city’s many Jewish institutions, recalled Penina Migdal Glazer, a former Hampshire professor, in a 2024 interview.
Instead, Lansky chose Amherst — a place he knew from his college years, with faculty mentors who could support the project, and more affordable land. He purchased 10 acres on an apple orchard next to the Hampshire campus and, in 1997, built the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Building, designed to evoke an Eastern European shtetl.
In the years that followed, the Yiddish Book Center and Hampshire College became a magnet for students interested in Yiddish. The two partnered to host Yiddish language classes and programs like the Yiddish Book Center’s Steiner Summer Yiddish Program, where participants immerse themselves in seven weeks of Yiddish language and culture while staying in Hampshire College dorms.
The closure’s impact
Facing declining enrollment and mounting debt, Hampshire College’s Board of Trustees voted to permanently close the school following the fall 2026 semester, president Jennifer Chrisler announced Tuesday.
McDougall told the Forward that the Yiddish Book Center’s summer residential programs are independent of Hampshire College and will continue, adding, “There is currently no programmatic partnership with Hampshire College.”
“We are saddened by Hampshire College’s announcement,” Susan Bronsin, president of the Yiddish Book Center, said in a statement. “Hampshire has been a valued neighbor for many years, and we recognize the significance of this moment for its community.”
For Aleks Ritter, co-founder of the student group Hampshire Jewish Life, the campus’ proximity to the Yiddish Book Center was a large part of the school’s appeal when he first applied. Ritter had studied Yiddish through YIVO in high school and hoped to continue in college.
He and his friends would often go to the Yiddish Book Center to study and hang out, and several of his friends worked part-time jobs there.
“The school has been really wonderful for Jewish students,” Ritter said.
Now, Ritter will have to transfer to another college in the area.
For alumni like Adler, the loss also feels personal. Hampshire was the first time she had formally studied Yiddish — an experience that shaped her career.
“There was something special happening at Hampshire,” Adler said. “It was very important to me and to a lot of other people. I’m just so sad. I can’t believe it’s closing.”
The post Hampshire College closure reverberates for alumni who treasured a Yiddishist hub appeared first on The Forward.