Uncategorized
A new bill would ban protests near synagogues, after the Park East protest. Is that legal?
A protest outside a prominent New York City synagogue has prompted a bill that would ban demonstrations within 25 feet of houses of worship and reproductive health care clinics. But free speech advocates say the proposed restriction raises constitutional concerns that could put the measure on shaky ground.
“This bill, especially as written, would ban an enormous amount of protests in New York and contradict pretty well established First Amendment protections for protest on sidewalks and public streets,” Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told the Forward.
If passed, the bill could tee up a legal clash over how to balance the protection of worshippers with protesters’ First Amendment rights.
State Assemblyman Micah Lasher, who introduced the bill, defended it in an interview with CNN: “There needs to be some reasonable space so that people who are trying to enter a house of worship or reproductive care facility can do so without having to run a gauntlet,” he said.
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani was reportedly receptive to the idea of limiting protests near houses of worship during a conversation with Rabbi Marc Schneier, the son of Park East Rabbi Arthur Schneier. Later, Mamdani told the Forward that he would consult community leaders and legal experts before determining whether he supports the legislation.
Why was the bill introduced?
Lasher said he introduced the legislation partly in response to a protest outside Park East Synagogue, where demonstrators objected to an event inside promoting immigration to Israel. Protesters chanted slogans like “death to the IDF” and “globalize the intifada.”
Mamdani condemned the demonstration and said New Yorkers should be free to enter houses of worship without intimidation. But he also said that “sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law,” referring to the promotion of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
That statement drew outrage from some Jewish leaders who view making aliyah, or immigrating to Israel, as a core Jewish value. Two weeks later, UJA-Federation of New York hosted a rally outside Park East Synagogue, where speakers condemned the protesters’ rhetoric.
Speaking to the crowd, Rabbi Arthur Schneier backed the legislation and urged attendees to call their representatives to express support.
“Legislators, keep your eyes open,” Schneier said. “This is what we want.”
What are the constitutional concerns?
In weighing constitutionality, courts consider whether a law restricts more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interest.
In this case, if the state’s goal is simply to ensure physical access to places of worship, there are already laws in place, according to Iodice. A 1994 federal law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, makes it illegal to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to block access to reproductive health services or houses of worship.
If the government’s goal is to ensure congregants can worship without emotional distress, the bill may be too broad, according to Alan Brownstein, a constitutional law scholar and professor emeritus at UC Davis School of Law.
“Suppose you had three people and they had a sign that said, Reconsider attending this house of worship, because the clergy oppose same sex marriage. And that’s all you had, three people with signs and they’re 20 feet away,” Brownstein said. “Is that traumatizing? Is that so disturbing to people who are going to attend a house of worship that we have to prohibit it?”
It’s also unclear what the bill means by “demonstrating,” he said. Some definitions — like two or more people engaging in expressive conduct — could apply to a wedding ceremony outside a synagogue as easily as a protest.
Legislators also cannot ban speech they dislike while allowing speech they approve. So if the bill only targets protests but permits supportive demonstrations, that creates another legal problem, Brownstein said.
The distance requirement could also be an issue. The bill requires demonstrators to stay 25 feet away from not only the building, but also its parking lot, driveway, and sidewalk, which could make the actual restriction larger, Iodice said.
In a densely packed area like Manhattan, that could eliminate a lot of protest space.
“Banning protests across wide swaths of Manhattan, as a realistic matter, that’s not going to fly constitutionally because of how much speech it restricts,” Iodice said.
There is some precedent for this kind of restriction: Laws creating protest-free buffer zones have been used in a variety of other contexts, including at funerals and abortion clinics in other states.
But it’s an open question whether those cases translate to houses of worship, Brownstein said, because healthcare clinics and cemeteries don’t participate in public discourse in the same way a synagogue or church does.
He considered a hypothetical law barring demonstrations within 25 feet of a political party’s headquarters, in what would be an obvious attempt to silence opposing views.
“Now, houses of worship aren’t political campaign headquarters,” Brownstein said. “But if anyone argued to me that religion is not a major voice in public discourse and debate in the United States, I don’t know where they’ve been.”
The post A new bill would ban protests near synagogues, after the Park East protest. Is that legal? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Ran Gvili, last remaining Israeli hostage in Gaza, featured on 2 Times Square digital billboards
(JTA) — Commuters in Times Square were confronted this week with a new digital billboard demanding the release of the final remaining hostage in Gaza, Ran Gvili.
“Hamas must release him now,” the billboard reads next to a photo of Gvili. “The last Israeli hostage held in Gaza.”
Gvili, a 24-year-old police officer who was killed defending Kibbutz Alumim during Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, was one of roughly 250 hostages taken into Gaza.
The billboard, which is part of an effort led by the Israeli Consulate in New York and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, comes nearly two months after all 20 living hostages were returned to Israel as part of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.
Since then, the remaining deceased hostages in Gaza have been returned intermittently, including the remains of Thai agricultural worker Sudthisak Rinthalak last week, in a slow process that has extended tensions between Israel and Hamas.
Last month, the American Jewish Committee launched its own billboard campaign in Times Square that featured a montage of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Today, the display only features Gvili.
“The nightmare isn’t over,” the AJC’s billboard reads, according to a video the group posted on Youtube Tuesday, followed by a photo of Gvili’s mother holding a hostage poster of him with the caption, “A family incomplete.”
Later in the slideshow, the screen displays a photo of Gvili with the caption, “Over two years later, Hamas still holds Ran hostage in Gaza,” before ending with the message, “Bring Ran home now.”
As the number of hostages has dwindled and the weekly hostage rallies have come to a close, Gvili’s parents have become the only hostage family members in the public eye.
“We’re at the last stretch and we have to be strong, for Rani, for us, and for Israel. Without Rani, our country can’t heal,” Gvili’s mother, Talik, told Reuters on Monday.
Once Gvili is returned, the ceasefire plan is supposed to move into its second phase as laid out in a plan devised by President Donald Trump this fall.
Trump has said phase two is imminent. But while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters Sunday he expects the plan to move into its second phase “very shortly,” Hamas political bureau member Husam Badran said on Tuesday that Israel had not yet honored its part of the deal, pointing to the continued closure of the Rafah crossing with Egypt. (Israel has said the crossing will open soon to allow Palestinians to exit Gaza.)
Both Israel and Hamas would lose authority in Gaza during the next phase of Trump’s plan, which would establish a “Board of Peace” helmed by Trump to make decisions about Gaza’s future. It is expected that the Palestinian Authority will play a role in the board, which Israeli officials have said they oppose, and Hamas will face renewed pressure to disarm, which it does not want to do.
Some have speculated that Hamas knows the location of Gvili’s remains but has not released them to avoid bringing the hostage-release phase of the ceasefire to an end. That leaves him and his story of Oct. 7 heroism in the public eye for longer.
“We will not forget for a single moment Ran Gvili, an Israeli hero. Even with an injured shoulder, Ran went out to defend and repel the Hamas monsters who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023,” said Ofir Akunis, the consul general of Israel in New York, in a statement about the Times Square billboard. “Israel demands that Hamas fully complete Phase A before we proceed to the beginning of Phase B of President Trump’s plan.”
The post Ran Gvili, last remaining Israeli hostage in Gaza, featured on 2 Times Square digital billboards appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Qatar’s Sudden Moral Outrage on Gaza Reconstruction Rings Hollow
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani speaks on the first day of the 23rd edition of the annual Doha Forum, in Doha, Qatar, December 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Qatar delivered one of the most revealing geopolitical moments of the year when its prime minister, Mohammed Abdulrahman Al Thani, announced that Doha will not pay to rebuild Gaza.
The irony is extraordinary. Qatar, the same state that hosted Hamas’ top leadership for more than a decade, financed Gaza’s bureaucracy, and positioned itself as Hamas’ indispensable diplomatic back channel, now insists it bears no responsibility for the consequences of the very organization it nurtured.
The sudden rediscovery of fiscal restraint would be amusing if the implications weren’t so revealing.
What Doha is attempting is not moral clarity. It is narrative control. By refusing to participate in reconstruction, Qatar avoids the unavoidable admission that its financial, political, and media patronage strengthened the organization that triggered the current war.
If Gaza was “destroyed,” as Qatari officials tirelessly proclaim, then a basic question follows: destroyed in response to what? Hamas executed the October 7 massacre, built an underground fortress of tunnels, stockpiled rockets in civilian zones, and systematically transformed Gaza into a militarized enclave. These were not accidental byproducts of governance. They were deliberate investments — and Qatar was Hamas’ most generous financial sponsor.
The record is not a matter of political interpretation. US Treasury designations, UN reports, and major independent investigations have repeatedly documented that Qatar-based donors, charities, and intermediaries supported Hamas, alongside Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Mali. Qatari individuals sanctioned by the United States have also raised funds for Jabhat al-Nusra (HTS).
These findings are not Israeli claims; they originate from American counterterrorism authorities and multilateral bodies.
Yet Qatar continues to brand itself as a humanitarian benefactor to Gaza. In practice, its “relief payments” repeatedly functioned as political leverage: money that sustained Hamas’ rule and relieved the organization of basic governing responsibilities, all while allowing Doha to posture as a benevolent mediator.
Meanwhile, other regional powers have made their terms clear regarding Gaza reconstruction. The UAE and Saudi Arabia insist that any reconstruction of Gaza must be tied to a political framework that prevents Hamas from reconstituting itself. Qatar, by contrast, has spent years cultivating an outcome in which Hamas survives as a viable actor, preserving Doha’s influence and its role as a necessary mediator.
If Hamas’ military infrastructure is dismantled, Qatar is left with a failed investment and is now eager to disclaim responsibility for the outcome.
This dynamic is not new. For more than a decade, Qatar and Iran have served as parallel financial engines for Islamist militant groups across the region, using state funds, quasi-state charities, and well-connected private donors to support this activity. Western governments long tolerated the arrangement because Qatar hosts a major US air base, commands immense energy wealth, and uses its media empire to shape regional debate. But the mask is slipping. Doha’s attempt to distance itself from the consequences of its own policy choices exposes a contradiction it can no longer conceal.
This leads to the essential question: who still takes Qatar’s moral lectures seriously?
A state that sheltered Hamas’ leadership now claims neutrality. A state whose sanctioned donors aided extremist networks now positions itself as a humanitarian authority. A state that spent years empowering the group responsible for one of the worst atrocities in modern history now refuses to help rebuild the territory devastated by that group’s actions.
The world should stop pretending not to see the pattern. Qatar’s diplomatic theater cannot hide the facts. The Emirate has influence, resources, and global reach. What it lacks, despite its insistence, is credibility.
Sabine Sterk is CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
Uncategorized
How the Palestinian Authority Encourages Children to Die for Allah
A group of Palestinian children being taught that Israel will be destroyed. Photo: Palestinian Media Watch.
Instead of encouraging children to reach heights in education and contribute something positive in their lives, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Ministry of Education continues to indoctrinate children to see dying for Allah – Shahada (Martyrdom) – as the great ideal.
This child abuse was once again highlighted last week during celebrations of the UN’s “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.”
The Tulkarem Directorate of Education proudly posted photos on Facebook — taken at the school events — of children holding signs glorifying Martyrdom.
One sign portrayed Martyrs as smelling sweeter than a jasmine flower:
“How could a jasmine not envy a homeland that smells of Martyrs?” [Tulkarem Directorate of Education, Facebook page, Dec. 2, 2025]
Another sign proclaimed: “We will live like soaring eagles, and we will die like proud lions; we are all for the homeland and we are all for Palestine.”
These slogans encapsulate the PA’s indoctrination that Martyrdom, even for children, is not tragic or regrettable, but something beautiful, fragrant, and desirable. The PA is encouraging violence, and glorifying the murder of Jews.
Other posters held by students featured the PA map of “Palestine,” which erases Israel and displays the entire territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as Palestinian land:
One sign was accompanied by the slogan: “The compass will never deviate from the path and will continue to point towards Palestine.”
Other students carried large symbolic keys, representing the so-called “right of return,” which the PA teaches is an inevitable immigration to all of Israel’s cities and towns of nearly six million Arab descendants of so-called “refugees.”
The message to the children is that Israel has no right to exist and that the national mission, or “the path,” remains the elimination of Israel.
The events were attended by high-level PA officials, including Tulkarem Education Directorate Director-General Mazen Jarrar, Tulkarem District representative Rasha Sabah, and Fatah Movement Tulkarem Branch Secretary Iyad Jarrad.
These official PA education events, which glorify violence, romanticize Martyrdom, erase Israel from the map, and instill lifelong hatred towards Israel, are all part of the ongoing PA campaign to ensure that the next generation denies Israel’s right to exist and is willing to fight and seek death to achieve its goals.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.