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
Why Are Jews Called ‘The Chosen People’? Misunderstanding, Misuse, and a Convenient Distortion
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
From Ana Kasparian’s claim that Israelis are despised worldwide for “thinking you’re G-d’s chosen people” to Roger Waters’ unhinged assertion that Israelis seek to first take over the Middle East and then rule the world because they see themselves as the “chosen people,” you have likely come across similar screeds on social media.
Few phrases in Judaism have been so persistently misrepresented as “the Chosen People.”
It is routinely weaponized against Jews and Israel, invoked as supposed proof of Jewish supremacism or racial hierarchy.
In this telling, Jewish identity is reduced to a claim of inherent superiority, in direct contradiction to the Bible’s core teaching that all humans are created in God’s image.
This distortion is not accidental. It reflects a broader tendency to force Jewish history and theology into categories that do not fit, particularly a modern racial lens that is both historically and conceptually misplaced.
That lens becomes especially grotesque when applied in the shadow of the Holocaust, which is itself often misappropriated in contemporary discourse. The accusation is inverted: the victims of a racial ideology are recast as its inheritors, with “chosenness” presented as evidence of exclusion, purity, or dominance.
First, this argument ignores a basic reality: Jews are not a race. Jewish communities span continents and cultures, from Ethiopian to Indian to European and Middle Eastern, bound not by racial homogeneity but by shared history, law, and tradition.
More fundamentally, it misunderstands the meaning of the term itself.
So what does it actually mean to be “chosen”?
The concept originates in the Torah, most explicitly in Exodus 19:6, at Mount Sinai, where the Israelites are described as a “holy nation” and enter into covenant with God through the giving of the Ten Commandments. It is reiterated in Deuteronomy 7:6, where they are called a “treasured people.”
But “chosen” in this context does not denote privilege in the modern sense. It denotes obligation.
It is a designation tied to covenant, a binding commitment to a specific set of laws, ethical demands, and responsibilities. Far from elevating Jews above others, it imposes a burden: to live according to a demanding moral and religious framework, and to serve as a model of ethical conduct.
The idea reaches back to Abraham in Genesis and to the emergence of the Israelites. In Jewish tradition, Abraham is the figure who recognizes one God and rejects the pagan world around him. That matters because the ancient Near East was overwhelmingly polytheistic. Egyptians worshiped a vast pantheon of gods with different powers and domains; Mesopotamian religion centered on multiple deities embodied in cult statues housed and served in temples, and the Greeks likewise appealed to different gods for different realms of life and nature.
In Jewish tradition, Abraham is the first great monotheist, the figure who recognizes one God in a world dominated by idol worship. That belief becomes the foundation of Jewish faith and practice, expressed most clearly in the central declaration of God’s oneness that underpins Jewish prayer.
The God Abraham recognizes is not a local or limited deity, but the Creator of everything: heaven and earth, day and night, and all living things. That idea alone marked a radical break from the religious norms of the ancient world.
Abraham is also understood to have paid a price for that belief. He rejected the idols of his time, broke with the society around him, and left his homeland in response to God’s command, entering into a life defined by faith and uncertainty.
And this is the crucial point often missed. The Biblical story is not one of a people passively selected as superior, but of a family, and later a nation, entering into a binding relationship with one God and accepting the obligations that come with it.
That obligation has had consequences far beyond the Jewish people themselves. Two of the world’s largest faiths, Christianity and Islam, emerge from this tradition. Both are rooted in the idea of one God and draw directly on core elements of the Hebrew Bible. The concept of ethical monotheism, first articulated in Jewish tradition, did not remain confined to one people. It reshaped the religious landscape of much of the world.
“Chosenness,” then, is not an abstract or inward-looking idea. Its influence has been global.
In the Bible, the relationship between God and humanity is not static. It is dynamic, and at times contested. God is not presented as distant or arbitrary, but as a being with whom humans can argue, plead, and reason.
We see this most clearly in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abraham challenges God’s initial judgment, pressing the case that the innocent should not be destroyed alongside the guilty. The episode is striking not because Abraham “wins,” by reducing the threshold to ten righteous individuals, but because he argues at all. It establishes a model of moral engagement, not passive submission.
Elsewhere, the Bible repeatedly shows that covenant comes with conditions. The Israelites are not portrayed as unconditionally elevated, but as accountable. In the story of the spies, their lack of faith leads to a generation being barred from entering the Promised Land. Even Moses is not exempt from consequence.
The message is consistent. “Chosen” does not mean guaranteed. It means bound by responsibilities. In a modern context, that responsibility includes building a just society, resisting oppression, and protecting the vulnerable; to honor human dignity in law, economics, and war; to safeguard creation rather than exploit it; and to pursue truth and integrity in public life, even when it is costly.
Nor is this covenant entirely closed. The Hebrew Bible recognizes righteous individuals outside the Jewish people, and Jewish law has long held that converts are fully part of the nation, with no lesser status. Entry into the covenant is not racial, but defined by commitment.
The phrase “Chosen People” has become a rhetorical weapon, deployed to accuse Jews of the very worldview their tradition rejects.
A covenant of obligation is recast as a claim of superiority. A system built on law, restraint, and accountability is twisted into something racial and exclusionary.
But the distortion does not hold. “Chosen” in Judaism does not mean elevated. It means obligated.
And the refusal to understand that is not an intellectual failure. It is a choice.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Flyers for ‘IsraelFest’ at New York high school ended up in a urinal. Now the school board president is facing calls to resign.
(JTA) — The school board president in a heavily Jewish suburb of New York City is facing calls to resign after flyers promoting a student-led Israeli culture club event were torn down and later found in a boys’ bathroom urinal last week.
The flyers advertised an “IsraelFest” event to celebrate Israel’s 78th Independence Day this week at Scarsdale High School. Among those posting photographs of the vandalism was the daughter of the board president, James Dugan. She added a caption: “Keep up the good work.”
The incident quickly drew condemnation from leaders within the school district of the heavily Jewish New York City suburb, including Superintendent Drew Patrick, who wrote in a letter to the community that the vandalism “places our collective sense of community in jeopardy.”
“We live in a time of rising antisemitism, political polarization, and a degraded civil discourse,” Patrick wrote. “I want the community to know that we take these complex challenges seriously and work to confront them every single day.”
Patrick said the district had already been developing a “clear, written set of guidelines regarding student speech and dress at school sponsored student activities,” which will be introduced at a Board of Education meeting on May 11.
Scarsdale High School Principal Kenneth Bonamo also decried the incident in a letter to the community on Friday, adding that the student government’s Instagram post advertising the event received “two replies criticizing the event using vulgar language.”
Bonamo said the school’s investigation into the incident was “active and ongoing,” and that officials were “currently interviewing students and reviewing camera footage to identify those involved.”
“The Israeli Culture Club was well within its right to plan this type of an event, for which they sought and received administrative approval,’ Bonamo wrote. “Denigrating the club’s efforts in this way is wholly inconsistent with our values, both as a matter of basic fairness to support appropriate and approved student activities and because these actions constitute antisemitism.”
The event promised “Israeli food (and pizza), drinks and desserts alongside Israeli music and games,” suggesting no focus on current events or geopolitics.
The incident comes as younger Americans increasingly adopt anti-Israel stances, setting up clashes in places like Scarsdale, where many Jewish families have connections to the country and to Jewish communities. In 2024, two stores in a Scarsdale shopping plaza, one of which had a sign reading “We stand with Israel” in its window, were targeted with anti-Israel graffiti.
In his letter, Bonamo added that the school had received “concerns that the unlabeled map in the flyer seems to include disputed territories as part of the State of Israel.” The map did not delineate the West Bank and Gaza.
“This is a core conflict in this debate, one that is worthy of exploration in civil discourse, but responding in this way is still not appropriate,” Bonamo wrote of the map.
An online petition calling for the students responsible for the vandalism to face “meaningful disciplinary action” as well as for Dugan’s ouster nearly 1,000 signatures by Tuesday morning.
“When a Board member’s immediate family is directly connected to the approval, encouragement, or defense of antisemitic behavior, it undermines public confidence in the Board’s ability to lead fairly and credibly during moments of crisis,” the petition read. “For that reason, we call for the resignation of any Board of Education member whose household is implicated in supporting these acts.”
A separate petition calling for the school board to reject calls for Dugan’s resignation drew over 100 signatures.
Dugan appeared to address his daughter’s post in a letter to the school community on Friday, writing, “Recent events have provided a profound teaching moment for me as a parent and have impacted me and my family.”
He added, “As a parent, I will focus on healing my family. But as a school board member, my focus will continue to be on our students, our schools, and our educational program.”
The incident follows others at high schools in the region that have unsettled Jewish students and watchdogs. In February, a New York City high schooler was arrested for allegedly sending an email threatening to “kill all the Jews in this school,” and earlier this month, students at a Connecticut Catholic school were punished for making antisemitic posts about a rival hockey team.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Flyers for ‘IsraelFest’ at New York high school ended up in a urinal. Now the school board president is facing calls to resign. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Isaac Accords, Wave of IRGC Terror Designations Signal Deepening Israel–Latin America Ties
Argentina’s President Javier Milei receives Presidential Medal of Honor from Israel’s President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem, April 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
As Israel deepens its diplomatic outreach across Latin America, a quiet but notable convergence is taking shape, with regional governments tightening security cooperation and increasingly aligning efforts to counter Iranian-linked terrorism and illicit networks operating across the hemisphere.
During a state visit to Israel on Sunday, Argentine President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally signed the Isaac Accords, a new framework aimed at deepening ties between Israel and Latin American governments while jointly addressing antisemitism and terrorism.
According to Toby Dershowitz, senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC–based think tank, this initiative builds on rising regional momentum for closer cooperation with the Jewish state and sets in place a framework for intelligence-sharing and coordinated law enforcement efforts aimed at countering Iranian proxy networks operating across the hemisphere.
Latin America has long been regarded as a hub for Iran-backed Hezbollah’s illicit drug trafficking and other criminal activities, which have been used to finance its broader terrorist operations worldwide.
“While just formally signed in recent days, there is already momentum behind some of the Isaac Accords’ goals,” Dershowitz told The Algemeiner. “Several countries have taken steps – including terrorism designations – to counter the Islamic Republic’s threat.”
“The Western Hemisphere has been plagued by Iran-backed terrorism for decades and countries are increasingly leveraging support from allies in the region to address the threat,” she continued.
Modeled after the Abraham Accords — a series of historic, US-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab countries — this new initiative aims to strengthen political, economic, and cultural cooperation between the Jewish state and Latin American governments.
During the signing ceremony, Milei described the launch of the accords as “a historic moment for our nations,” saying they are intended to advance peace through efforts to strengthen long-term regional stability, security, and economic prosperity.
The Isaac Accords “will not only strengthen the relationship between Argentina and Israel, united by shared values, but also mark a step toward a freer and more prosperous hemisphere,” the Argentine leader said.
According to a joint statement between the two leaders, the new initiative will focus on technology, security, and economic development, with an emphasis on deepening cooperation in innovation, commerce, and cultural exchange.
It will also seek to encourage partner countries to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem, formally designate Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and shift longstanding voting patterns on Israel at the United Nations.
Dershowitz explained that the push to formally designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxy groups as terrorist organizations — an approach already adopted by several Latin American countries — is central to strengthening states’ ability to investigate and prosecute terrorism networks.
She also noted that such designations facilitate cooperation with global financial intelligence units, expanding the legal tools available to track and disrupt illicit financing.
“Iran has a concerning footprint in Latin America. Some countries in the region face major Hezbollah-linked drug trafficking challenges and, as a result, exposure to illicit financial flows,” Dershowitz said. “It is no doubt part of the calculus that led to these designations.”
Since the start of the war in Gaza, and even more so amid the broader confrontation with Iran, Latin American countries have increasingly sought to align their domestic legislation with international sanctions frameworks targeting Hezbollah, Hamas, and the IRGC — all of which are designated by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Paraguay are among some of the countries that have designated Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRGC as terrorist organizations.
More recently, Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago have also followed suit, proscribing all three Iranian and Iran-backed entities.
Once a formal designation is in place, authorities can immediately freeze a wide range of assets belonging to designated entities without the need for a prior criminal conviction.
The designation also makes it a criminal offense to provide such entities with material support — such as funding, transportation, housing, or false documentation — while giving authorities additional tools to track and map a group’s logistical and financial networks.
Last month, Argentina also designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, after previously designating the Palestinian group Hamas in 2024 and the Lebanese group Hezbollah in 2019.
After Iran accused Buenos Aires of “siding with the aggressors” and violating international law with its latest designation, the Argentine government declared Iranian chargé d’affaires Mohsen Tehrani “persona non grata” and gave him 48 hours to leave the country.