Uncategorized
A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools
(JTA) – Among the many books that conservative parents have recently asked their children’s schools to remove is a lushly illustrated version of the most famous Holocaust diary.
The graphic adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary, published in English in 2018, has found itself at the center of a growing number of controversies involving book removals from school libraries. A small number of passionate activists have pushed for the book to be removed from schools in Florida and Texas, calling it “pornography” and even “antisemitic.” Sometimes, they’ve succeeded.
The movement to police children’s literature — particularly graphic novels — on the basis of race, sex and gender has encompassed thousands of different titles, and it has grown to become a potent political force with potential reverberations for the 2024 presidential race. The official who has played one of the biggest roles in enabling parents to challenge school library books, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is now running for president.
To defenders of the illustrated book — including the foundation created in Frank’s memory, historians and Jewish groups — the inclusion of Anne Frank’s diary among the list of banned books is a sign that the movement is bigoted and misguided.
Proponents of removing the book from schools say the graphic adaptation is essentially an obscene version that distorts Frank’s legacy and aids in “grooming” children. Even some Jewish parents and at least one Jewish lawmaker have objected to the book’s presence in schools.
“I read the diary of Anne Frank many times as a kid. I don’t remember any of that stuff that they put in that graphic novel,” Florida Rep. Randy Fine told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Calling the adaptation an “Anne Frank pornography book,” Fine continued, “And frankly that graphic novel is antisemitic. To sexualize the diary of Anne Frank in that sort of inappropriate way, it is antisemitic.”
Here is what you need to know about the book, the criticism it’s facing and the context that has made it a flashpoint in a deepening culture war.
What is ‘Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation’?
Published in 2018, “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” is a new, abridged version of Frank’s famous diary presented in comic-book format. The project was authorized by the Anne Frank Fonds, the Switzerland-based foundation started by Anne’s father Otto Frank, which controls the copyright to the diary Otto rescued after he survived the Holocaust. Anne herself perished in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after hiding out for most of the war with her family in an Amsterdam annex.
The Oscar-nominated Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman, together with illustrator David Polonsky, put the new book together. It was intended as a companion piece to the 2021 animated film “Where Is Anne Frank,” which Folman directed.
While the film tells the fanciful story of Anne’s imaginary friend Kitty coming to life and wandering through modern-day Amsterdam, the book is a straightforward, though heavily truncated, rendition of Anne’s original diary. All of the entries it reproduces are taken from her original text, and dialogue between the characters in the annex is based on Anne’s own recollections of their conversations. Some of its supporters resist the label “graphic novel,” which they say implies the story is fictional.
The new book, the foundation says, is not meant to replace Frank’s original diary, first published in Dutch in 1947 as “The Secret Annex” and in English in 1952 as “The Diary of a Young Girl.” That book, along with subsequent editions that restored some passages edited out of the first publication, continues to be published and widely read in dozens of languages.
Why and how is the book being challenged?
A handful of parent activists, the largest “parents’ rights” group in the country and at least one Republican state lawmaker — Fine — have specifically gone after “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” as part of their larger campaign against what they say is obscene and pornographic content in schools. After a few isolated incidents of parental opposition to the book over the last year, their efforts have gained steam in recent months.
Organized by members of “parents’ rights” groups such as Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education, parents nationwide have brought challenges against thousands of books in school libraries, the vast majority of which deal with topics of race, gender and sexuality. This movement began as parents organized to oppose COVID-19 mask mandates in public schools, and picked up steam in the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder, as well as recent political controversies involving LGBTQ-focused issues such as medical procedures for trans children.
The groups operate under the presumption that their children’s educators and librarians might be trying to sneak leftist viewpoints (including what they call “critical race theory” and “gender ideology”) into the classroom, or even that they are “grooming” their children.
Increasingly, such parents have trained this focus on books, and have become particularly sensitive to any literary depictions of sex and/or LGBTQ identity — particularly in graphic or comic-book format. Some of the most-banned books in schools across the country are graphic novels and memoirs with LGBTQ themes, including “Gender Queer” and “Fun Home.”
“People are just so uncomfortable with the idea of seeing anything represented visually,” said Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read program at the literary free-speech activist group PEN America. “Time and time again, when graphic novels are taken, an image is pulled out of context or an image is held up and declared as porn.”
Florida has emerged as a frontier for this movement under the leadership of DeSantis, who is a Republican. Under new laws he championed, educators can face felony charges for making obscene material accessible to students; the state also has a new law, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by its critics, that prohibits any classroom instruction on sexual identity or orientation in elementary and middle school, and limits it in high school.
Why are parents complaining specifically about the graphic adaptation?
Critics of the book say they are objecting to the small handful of passages in which Anne describes sexual matters. In one, she discusses a time she asked a female friend if they could show each other their breasts, but was rebuffed. (“If only I had a girlfriend,” she muses.) In another, she describes clinical details of her own vagina.
These passages are Anne’s own writing, and were part of her actual diary. Folman and Polonsky reproduce them in the book and show a full-page illustration showing her wandering through a garden of female nude statues in the Greco-Roman tradition.
This illustration, which is presented as coming from Anne’s imagination, has garnered the most intense blowback from parents. In Facebook groups devoted to book challenges, some members have shared screenshots of the page as evidence of the adaptation’s obscene qualities, questioning why any parent would want their child to read it.
Some people challenging the book have offered other explanations. Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms For Liberty whose Florida district has removed the book, told JTA that she was troubled by the fact that the adaptation only replicates a small percentage of the original diary, while leaving out what she believed to be crucial context: the original epilogue that shifted from Anne’s first-person narration to a larger study of the victims of the Holocaust. (An afterword does appear in the graphic adaptation.)
Inveighing against current child literacy levels she said are woefully low, Justice was also infuriated by the idea that Frank’s diary needed an illustrated version to begin with.
“Anne wrote the diary when she was 13,” she said. “So the diary is written at a level where children of that age can completely understand it.”
What has happened when parents have challenged the book?
The book first grabbed headlines in August 2022, when administrators at Keller ISD, a public school district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, ordered staff to remove it (along with a selection of other books) from their shelves. The book had been challenged by a single parent the previous year, and the school’s new board, backed by right-wing special interest groups, had ordered its review policy for classroom materials to be completely overhauled. Any books that had ever been challenged in the district were to be removed from circulation until the matter had been resolved. Following public outcry, the book was returned to Keller’s shelves a week later.
A second Texas school district, Katy ISD outside Houston, had also placed the book under review during the 2021-22 school year, ultimately determining it was only appropriate for high school students.
The book soon landed on the radar of parent activists in Florida. One Florida school district, Indian River County Schools on the state’s Atlantic coast, ruled in April that the book was “not age-appropriate” at any level of instruction, including high school. A parent there had challenged it, claiming that the book “minimizes the Holocaust.”
After a review, the district agreed with the parent, telling JTA it had determined the book to be “a fictional novel,” “not the real diary of Anne Frank,” and filled with “inappropriate content.” The district superintendent issued a statement backing the ruling, citing Florida’s statewide Holocaust education mandate as a reason why the school should not make the book available to students.
The national leadership of Moms For Liberty issued a statement siding with the district — and emphasizing that Anne Frank’s diary is not itself objectionable.
“There are multiple versions of Anne Frank’s diary of varying age appropriateness available to students,” the statement said. “Only this ONE version was removed.”
Justice, the Moms for Liberty cofounder, is a former board member for Indian River County Schools and still lives in the area. She told JTA she does not like the book either and said its removal was a sign of the system working as it should: School administrators took a parent’s challenge seriously and came to a decision.
“If the superintendent and the school board wanted it there, it would be there,” she said. “If the Holocaust education group in the county had wanted it there — these are Jewish people — had wanted it there, it would be there.”
Another Florida school district, Clay County Public Schools outside Jacksonville, has kept the book restricted from student access for some five months and counting, following a single parental complaint earlier this year. That parent, Bruce Friedman, is Jewish, and has become a leading voice of the broader book challenge movement. He challenged the graphic adaptation along with hundreds of other books in his district that he deemed to be inappropriate for students. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s grooming,” he told JTA about the adaptation.
Facing a backlog of book challenges, Clay County in April altered its challenge policy to make it harder for parents like Friedman to file blanket requests to remove many books at once for broadly defined reasons. But notably, the district retained the pending challenge to “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” even after its policy change. A final decision on the book is still pending.
How are the book’s supporters responding to the criticism?
Activists opposed to the book banning movement and experts on the diary’s publication history say critics of the Anne Frank adaptation are wrong even about the most basic facts of their objections.
First, while the visual format of the graphic adaptation (which incorporates some surreal imagery) arguably lies somewhere between fact and artistic interpretation, and its rendition of the diary is severely abridged, the book did not invent the passages these parents find objectionable, as some have alleged. Those came, word for word, from Frank herself. Both passages were fully restored to her English-language diary beginning with versions published in the 1980s, largely without incident.
A crucial part of the argument against the graphic adaptation is the idea that both of these passages were excised from the initial English-language edition of the diary. Both Friedman and Fine have told JTA they have no recollection of having read the passages with sexual content in their own childhood memories of the diary.
They almost certainly did, said Ruth Franklin, a book critic and author who is writing a book about Frank and her diary to be published next year by Yale University Press. According to Franklin’s research, the very first English-language edition of the diary did indeed include one of the two passages the parents are now objecting to: the part where Anne discusses her attraction to another girl.
Franklin said that, contrary to popular belief, Otto Frank was the one who pushed for the passage to be included in the diary’s first English-language edition after it was excised from the Dutch original. Otto is often portrayed as having been responsible for removing the passage so as to sanitize Anne’s language for a general audience.
Contemporary parents who insist they did not read the passage as children, she said, are “misremembering.”
“If they were to actually go to the library and open up the edition that has been in print since 1952, they would be unhappily surprised to find what’s there,” Franklin said. “It seems inconsistent to me to go after the graphic adaptation and not the diary itself.”
At least one parent has objected to the unabridged text-based version of the diary before. In 2013, a Michigan mom challenged an unabridged edition of the diary, citing the same passages that today’s parents are objecting to in the graphic adaptation. She argued that the unabridged diary was “inappropriate for the middle school,” and tried to push her daughter’s district to swap out the “definitive” edition of the diary for the original version that excised one of the objectionable passages. The parent’s objection made national news, was the subject of much condemnation and was ultimately rejected by the district.
Conditions in schools have changed in the last decade, with parents in multiple states newly empowered to challenge books in their children’s schools. The movement has caught up not only the graphic version of Anne Frank’s diary but a growing number of other titles with Jewish and Holocaust themes.
Meehan of PEN America suggested that the parents who objected to Anne exploring her sexuality were doing so because of the passages’ latent LGBTQ themes, meaning that the text had become an example of “intersectionality,” or representing more than one marginalized group. Some of the book’s opponents, including Justice, have separately attacked the idea of intersectionality.
“When there are multiple themes represented in a book,” Meehan said, “then that book becomes even more a focus of efforts to remove it.”
For the Anne Frank Fonds, the Swiss group that controls the diary and authorized the adaptation, the situation is clear-cut. From across the Atlantic, the group issued a statement responding to challenges of the diary in all its forms: “We consider the book of a 12-year-old girl to be appropriate reading for her peers.”
—
The post A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
These rivals in a close House race agree on Israel. They’re fighting over who Jewish voters can trust.
Israel and antisemitism have emerged as central issues in several closely watched midterm races. But in New York’s 17th Congressional District, where Jewish voters could help decide one of the country’s most competitive House contests, the two candidates have more in common on those issues than their campaigns suggest.
Cait Conley, the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler, is not a progressive Democrat who Republicans have been warning Jewish voters about in recent campaigns. An Army combat veteran and former national security official, she strongly supports Israel, opposes additional conditions on U.S. military aid and rejects accusations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. She has also criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani over his statement marking the third anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack and has vowed to confront antisemitism within her own party. But that may not be enough to win Jewish votes from Lawler, who is popular with Jewish voters.
The district includes Rockland and Putnam counties and parts of Westchester and Dutchess. It has one of the largest Jewish populations in the country, with Jews making up an estimated 19% of its population, according to a 2024 study. It is one of the key House races where Jewish voters could make the difference in a closely contested election that will determine which party controls Congress.
Kamala Harris carried the district by a narrow 50-49 margin in 2024, and it voted for Joe Biden by a 59-39 margin before that. The late Jewish congresswoman Nita Lowey, a Democrat, represented the district for three decades until her retirement in 2020. Her successor, former Rep. Mondaire Jones, chose not to run in the redrawn district in 2022 and instead lost a bid for a House seat representing parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. During his unsuccessful 2024 campaign against Lawler, Jones had to delete a social media post that some deemed insulting to Orthodox Jews after he remarked that the former Republican House Speaker’s meeting with Rabbi David Twersky, the 86-year-old spiritual leader known as the Skverer Rebbe in Rockland County, “was a waste of everyone’s time.”
Conley, 31, faces a difficult challenge in her bid to unseat Lawler, who has deep relationships with Orthodox and Hasidic voters since he first won his seat in the 2022 midterms by a narrow margin of about 2,000 votes, thanks in part to strong support from the large Hasidic communities in Monsey, New Square and New Hempstead in Rockland County.
That makes the race a test of whether a moderate, pro-Israel Democrat can win back Jewish voters who have grown concerned about the growing influence of progressives within the Democratic Party.
In separate interviews with the Forward, Conley and Lawler both stressed their support for Israel and commitment to fighting rising antisemitism. To draw a contrast, Lawler, 40, questioned whether Conley would stick to her positions if elected, while Conley accused him of using his ties to Jewish voters to distract from his support for President Donald Trump’s agenda.
A Democrat who rejects conditions on Israel aid
Conley, a West Point graduate and 16-year Army combat veteran who later served as counterterrorism director on President Joe Biden’s National Security Council and oversaw election security efforts at the Department of Homeland Security, occupies a different position on Israel than many progressive Democrats.
She supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, backs continued U.S. military assistance and opposes imposing conditions on that aid, including on offensive weapons.
“I do not believe that what is going on in Gaza is a genocide, and I do not believe in further conditioning assistance to Israel, so it continues to have the means to defend itself against the very real threats that are posed,” Conley said in an interview. “I will be an effective and strong advocate for the Jewish community and assistance to Israel in the Democratic Party.”
Conley said her experience serving in the Middle East shaped her understanding of the threats Israel faces, particularly from Iran and terrorist organizations.
At the same time, she supports a two-state solution and believes American politicians should be able to criticize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders without questioning Israel’s legitimacy. She expressed concern, though, that criticism of Israeli government policies can sometimes become an excuse for targeting Jews. Conley also supports expanding federal security grants for synagogues and other religious institutions.
Conley said she supported the targeted American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, but opposes Trump’s war with Iran because she believes it has made the United States less secure and increased energy prices.
Lawler isn’t buying Conley’s pro-Israel pitch
Lawler dismissed the suggestion that he and Conley hold essentially the same positions on Israel and antisemitism.
“That’s laughable on its face,” he said in an interview.
His central argument is that Conley may sound like a moderate on the campaign trail but would ultimately follow Democratic leaders in Congress, as support for Israel becomes increasingly divisive within the party.
“She’ll be a rubber stamp on whatever the majority of the Democrats want to do,” Lawler said, citing the July vote to eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual military assistance to Israel. A record 103 of 212 Democrats supported the measure. Another 10 Democrats abstained. Conley “is not going to stand up and be a lone voice on these issues,” he said.
“At the end of the day,” Lawler added, “I have a very clear record of delivering on these issues, and there’s staunch differences in approach.”
A Republican who speaks the community’s language
Lawler’s relationship with Orthodox and Hasidic voters goes beyond his positions on Israel. A practicing Catholic, Lawler has made those relationships part of his political brand, going back to his election to the State Assembly in 2020. He has taken credit for lowering the temperature in Rockland County after local GOP officials in 2019 posted a video widely criticized as antisemitic. He regularly attends community celebrations and has helped arrange meetings between local rabbis and religious leaders, President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.
Earlier this year, William Paul, the son of Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, confronted him in a Washington bar, believing the New York congressman was Jewish. Paul later apologized and said he has a drinking problem for which he is seeking treatment.
His presence in the community has become so familiar that his campaign even has Yiddish materials and songs promoting his reelection. The songs are shared in popular WhatsApp groups, played at weddings and blasted from trucks driving through Hasidic neighborhoods to encourage people to vote.
Lawler’s campaign is aiming to surpass the 22,000 votes he received in Hasidic neighborhoods in 2022 and 26,000 votes in 2024, as polls show the race is a dead heat. In an interview with Punchbowl News, he predicted 30,000 Orthodox votes, arguing that the community’s participation is difficult for pollsters to capture.
In his interview with the Forward, Lawler said his popularity comes from a simple strategy: showing up.
“I am really the first elected official that has shown up, you know, consistently and publicly in this community, and not just to see the leadership of the community, but to meet the people,” he said. Lawler has even picked up some Yiddish vocabulary along the way. Asked what word he had learned, Lawler quipped, “I love the word shanda to describe Chuck Schumer,” using a Yiddish term for disgrace about the Senate Democratic leader, who is Jewish.
Lawler believes his efforts have helped build support beyond the Orthodox and Hasidic communities, including among Reform and secular Jews who might otherwise vote Democratic but are concerned about their party’s direction on Israel. “Democrats have effectively abandoned Jewish Americans,” he said.
Conley acknowledged Lawler’s visibility in the community but questioned whether it is matched with policies that benefit Jewish families. “Mike Lawler shows up for the photo op, but when it comes to acting, he turns his back on the community every time,” she said. Conley pointed particularly to his support for Republican-led legislation cutting Medicaid spending and other federal benefits.
A fight over antisemitism in politics
Conley said her own outreach has focused on convincing Jewish voters that she understands their security concerns and shares their commitment to Israel, even as she disagrees with Lawler on domestic policy.
She also spoke of a personal connection to the Jewish community as a member of the LGBTQ community, recalling how Jewish Americans stood up for LGBTQ rights. “That’s why I proudly stand beside them and let them know that there are people who deeply care and will proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with them and fight back against antisemitism,” she said.
As Lawler highlights his ties to Jewish voters and questions whether Conley would stand up to anti-Israel voices in the Democratic Party, Conley accuses him of associating with Republicans who have faced accusations of antisemitic rhetoric and ties to white nationalists.
She said Lawler had a double standard: condemning antisemitism among Democrats while supporting Republicans who have faced accusations of antisemitic rhetoric or associations with white nationalists. “He is the biggest hypocrite,” she said of Lawler. “He is a political operative who will do whatever is politically convenient for his political ambition.”
Conley cited, for example, Peter Oberacker, a Republican state legislator running against Democratic Rep. Josh Riley in the neighboring 19th District, who came under fire after a Facebook post from Veterans Day 2015 resurfaced in which he paid tribute to his grandfather who served in the Nazi-German military during World War II. Lawler attended Oberacker’s campaign launch last year and praised him. Lawler also contributed $5,000 to his campaign.
Conley described Oberacker as an “overt Nazi sympathizer” and said Lawler’s support for him undermined his claim to be a defender of Jewish Americans. Conley also pointed to Lawler’s past connections with members of the New York State Young Republicans, whose group was disbanded following a Politico investigation exposing racist and antisemitic messages. Lawler condemned it and called for those involved to resign from leadership positions.
Asked directly about the criticism, Lawler defended Oberacker. “He’s not an antisemite,” Lawler said, adding that Oberacker represents Jewish constituents in the state Senate. He dismissed Conley’s accusations as an attempt to distract from her own political alliances. “I think Cait is grasping at straws,” he said.
Lawler pointed to Conley’s decision to run on the Working Families Party ballot line, a progressive party that endorsed Mamdani in last year’s mayoral primary and has accused Israel of genocide. He also noted her remarks in a September interview, when she said that she “respects” what Mamdani represents to many New Yorkers. “I don’t respect antisemites,” Lawler said.
Lawler was the lead sponsor of the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act that would require the Department of Education to use the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism — which classifies most anti-Zionism as antisemitic — when investigating allegations of discrimination. It passed in the House in 2024 by an overwhelming majority of 320-91, but was stalled in the Senate due to resistance over constitutionally protected free speech. It was reintroduced in the House last year.
More recently, Lawler partnered with Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Jewish moderate Democrat from New Jersey, on a bipartisan House resolution condemning antisemitic rhetoric from online personalities including Hasan Piker and Candace Owens.
Conley said she recognizes the rise of “extremism and antisemitism in both parties” and has heard from Jewish voters who feel abandoned by some of the same political allies they once supported. By speaking out on these issues and committing to confront them within her own party, Conley is aiming to convince these voters that they do not have to support a Republican to feel protected.
“The Jewish community knows they have a home in the Democratic Party. Period,” she said.
The post These rivals in a close House race agree on Israel. They’re fighting over who Jewish voters can trust. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rift between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens puts Michigan Jews on edge
(JTA) — ANN ARBOR, Michigan — An 11th-hour public feud between Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and his pro-Israel former primary rival is further exacerbating tensions between Jewish voters and the nominee ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections.
U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, who this summer narrowly lost the race for the Democratic nomination to El-Sayed, had previously endorsed her former competitor and was set to join him at a rally Sunday in the crucial final days of campaigning. Michigan is locked in a tight race that could help determine which party controls the Senate.
Instead of a show of unity, Stevens is now forcefully criticizing El-Sayed for his recent criticism of Israel and for not condemning a PAC ad, made by an outside group to boost his campaign, that blamed Israel for rising grocery prices. El-Sayed has shot back, invoking Stevens’ close relationship with the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC.
Stevens, who represents a large Jewish district in suburban Detroit, unloaded on El-Sayed Friday in a series of interviews with the New York Times published early Saturday morning.
On social media Friday, Stevens had said she expected El-Sayed to shortly condemn the ad, paid for by Rebellion PAC, a project of far-left commentator Cenk Uygur. El-Sayed had earlier distanced himself from the ad but had not commented on its content.
“We are not going to say that the cost of groceries is because of Jews and the Jewish state,” Stevens told the Times, adding, “Maybe it is what you want people to believe.” She stopped short of formally rescinding her endorsement of El-Sayed.
The feud comes at a moment when much of the Democratic establishment has coalesced behind El-Sayed in the key Senate race, even as deep concerns remain among many traditionally Democratic Jewish voters. Stevens’ own fiancée, Jewish Democratic megadonor Jason Turkish, said this week he would be voting for Republican nominee Mike Rogers. Stevens told the Times she had met with a rabbi in advance of their wedding and was mulling converting to Judaism.
In a statement sent to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and other outlets Friday, El-Sayed accused Stevens of “relitigating a primary that ended three months ago.” He also said he had already “defeated” spending “from outside corporations and AIPAC” on behalf of Stevens.
El-Sayed did not mention the Uygur ad, nor another ad — this one produced by his campaign — that featured a brief clip of far-right commentator and anti-Israel voice Tucker Carlson announcing he wouldn’t vote for Rogers. Stevens had publicly urged El-Sayed to take down the Carlson ad, which the campaign had aired on conservative TV channels.
The El-Sayed campaign has dropped Stevens’ name from its description of Sunday’s planned Detroit church event, which is now scheduled to feature Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland. USA Today and other outlets have reported that El-Sayed’s campaign has asked Stevens to stay away from all future events.
Stevens and Turkish did not return a JTA request for comment.
In her social media statement Friday prior to El-Sayed’s response, Stevens had outlined Jewish constituent concerns about El-Sayed, noting that he himself has used rhetoric akin to blaming Michigan’s financial ills on Israel.
“The ad did not invent its argument; it dramatized one Dr. El-Sayed has made in his own words throughout this campaign: that Israel is the reason Michigan cannot afford schools, health care, and child care,” Stevens wrote. “Abdul promises to get money out of politics. He can begin by getting Israel out of his explanation for everything Michigan cannot afford.”
Both Turkish, in an earlier JTA interview from a Rogers event, and Stevens, to the Times, said their final breaking point with El-Sayed came after a recent debate in which the nominee had declined to say whether Israel or Iran posed a bigger threat to the United States.
El-Sayed on Friday did condemn a separate comment from anti-Israel streamer and former campaign ally Hasan Piker, who is Uygur’s nephew. In a stream this week, Piker had compared the heavily Jewish Detroit suburb of West Bloomfield to a “KKK neighborhood,” adding, “The supremacist attitude underlying their worldview is identical.”
In a statement to Jewish Insider about Piker’s comments, El-Sayed noted he grew up near West Bloomfield and stated, “Comparing Jewish Michiganders to the Ku Klux Klan is utterly inappropriate and flat out wrong.”
Meanwhile, Republicans are jumping at the Jewish divide. Rogers, a former congressman, has seized on the intraparty feud to appeal to Jewish voters who had supported Stevens in the primary. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump called Jews who back El-Sayed “crazy,” leading to condemnation from some Jewish leaders.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Rift between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens puts Michigan Jews on edge appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
BDS is on the ballot in Illinois, sort of
(JTA) — On a recent weeknight, a local Jewish federation official met with a small group of Jews in suburban Chicago for an election organizing event.
Leaders of the group preemptively barred journalists, and anyone they deemed could be a journalist, from entry on Zoom.
Chicago Jewish leaders were quietly organizing an effort with big implications: how to convince voters to defend a state law designed to shield Israel from boycotts.
“It’s a fight, to put it simply,” Dan Goldwin, public affairs officer at Chicago’s Jewish United Fund, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
JUF and other Jewish groups, Goldwin said, would be mounting “planned and meaningful opposition” to growing progressive efforts to overturn the law, which bars the state from investing pension funds in international companies that boycott Israel. Illinois was the first state to pass a law targeting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, and many other states followed suit soon after.
Now activists in some Illinois towns are leading the charge to repeal that first-in-the-nation law. Those efforts have resulted in a handful of ballot measures ceremonially opposing the law that will appear in municipalities around the state on Nov. 3.
“Illinois, which was really a laboratory for creating anti-BDS state laws years back, inevitably has become a site for backlash,” James Loeffler, a Jewish historian at Johns Hopkins University and author of “Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight Over Free Speech in Modern America,” told JTA.
The measures appear to have no binding power over the anti-boycott law itself, which has been on the books since 2015 and would require action by the state legislature and governor to overturn.
A representative for JB Pritzker, Illinois’ Jewish Democratic governor who is often rumored to be a 2028 presidential candidate, did not return a request for comment on Pritzker’s views about the state law or the ballot initiatives.
Yet the municipal measures, which will be presented to the Chicago suburb of Oak Park as well as communities around Champaign, Peoria and other towns, come at a moment when support for Israel has declined precipitously, particularly among Democrats. Following the country’s military response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, interest in BDS as a lever of protest has been rekindled on the left.
Residents of Providence, Rhode Island, will vote on a more consequential measure on Election Day that could result in the city divesting its pension funds from Israel. Somerville, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb, has been charged with finding a way to do the same following a successful divestment vote last year.
The Illinois BDS campaign, in contrast, targets a statewide law that has been on the books for more than a decade. Activists turned to gathering signatures for ballot measures in a handful of communities after a state representative’s efforts to repeal the law were scuttled during the most recent legislative session.
The law was signed by Pritzker’s Republican predecessor, Bruce Rauner. Upon its initial passage, the law was celebrated by Jewish leaders including the then-head of the JUF, Chicago’s Jewish federation arm.
“In the face of the BDS movement, legislators are simply determined to stand with a key U.S. ally and to align our values with our investments and trade policies,” Steven Nasatir wrote then.
He praised the Illinois law as having “real teeth” and stated, “We’re seeking to replicate our statewide success on the county and local level throughout Illinois and to assist other communities to do the same across the country.”
Dozens of other states, led by both Democrats and Republicans, have since followed suit with similar laws, many of which are more restrictive than Illinois’. Among the most contentious anti-BDS laws is in Arkansas, which requires anyone doing business with the state to sign a pledge affirming they will not boycott Israel.
Such laws have been challenged numerous times in court, with objectors arguing that they impinge on free speech rights. Loeffler sees the laws as “a continuation of a long story of trying to balance free speech versus equal protection in the law, when it comes to Jewish Americans.”
In 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Arkansas’ law, allowing it to stand without providing a defense of the general legality of such laws.
Daniel Biss, a Jewish Democratic congressional candidate running for a seat in Illinois, recently told JTA that he supports efforts to repeal the state law.
“I don’t support the BDS movement,” Biss, who held Israeli citizenship when he was younger, told JTA during a recent visit to Detroit. “I don’t think it builds a broad coalition for justice. But I also don’t think government should be involved in criminalizing free speech, and I think it’s important to say that the law on the books in Illinois is very strange.”
Proponents of Illinois’ law argue that it is narrower in scope than other state anti-BDS laws, targeting only international companies that have boycotted Israel for political reasons.
“We don’t want to be seen as restricting people’s ability to protest and boycott on their own,” Goldwin told JTA. The goal, he said, was to ensure that the state’s “priorities are aligned in how they invest.”
But even with those limitations, the list of companies barred from Illinois state investments for boycotting Israel – currently numbering 27, according to the state investment board that applies the law – includes entries that appear to go beyond the parameters of the law.
One of the companies is Air Canada, which Goldwin said was on the list because of years-old news items about the airline dropping Israeli-owned Sabra hummus from its in-flight menu. According to Goldwin, the state investment board gave the airline an opportunity to affirm that they are not boycotting Israel but Air Canada has not done so. Goldwin believes that is due to simple oversight.
“Mistakes can happen,” Goldwin said. “It’s just amplified because everything gets so focused on Israel.” A spokesperson for Air Canada did not return a JTA request for comment.
The most significant town casting a vote on the symbolic rejection of Illinois’ anti-BDS law is Oak Park, which also has the most organized Jewish community of the municipalities where these votes are being held. Oak Park’s ballot measure, as written, asks the state to “repeal laws that ban state investment in businesses that boycott the state of Israel.”
Jewish Community and Friends for Democracy, a local ad-hoc group, is organizing against the ballot measure with the help of JUF.
“We are hopeful that Oak Park voters will reject the divisive and misleading campaign,” a recent communication from Jewish Community and Friends for Democracy to its supporters reads. “Neighbors hearing from their Jewish neighbors and friends makes a big difference—indeed, it may make ‘THE’ critical difference in the outcome.”
The group’s organizers declined requests from JTA to comment. The ballot measure followed an earlier effort by activists in Oak Park Township, a separately incorporated community, to pass a more stridently worded BDS measure by voice vote at a town hall meeting. After local Jewish groups mobilized against the township measure, that effort was defeated.
This summer, following the signature-gathering phase, two Oak Park residents filed an objection in an unsuccessful effort to prevent the new measure from reaching the ballot on technical grounds. A follow-up lawsuit challenging the objection was also unsuccessful in preventing the measure from making the ballot.
Oak Parkers For Free Speech, a local activist group that had pushed the ballot measure, told JTA in August that the successful ballot placement “marks a victory for democracy.”
“By upholding our referendum, the board affirmed the right of community members to tell legislators that their constituents want the unconstitutional Illinois anti‑boycott law repealed,” the group wrote in an emailed statement. “On election day, we look forward to a victory for free speech and human rights.”
Other regions casting votes on whether to oppose the anti-BDS law include Champaign and Cunningham Townships, located near and around the University of Illinois; Normal Township, near Illinois State University in Bloomington; and multiple townships in the Peoria area in central Illinois.
The Jewish federations of Champaign-Urbana and Peoria did not return requests for comment. Rebecca Weininger, regional director for the Anti-Defamation League’s Midwest office, told local news outlets, “The social impact of repealing the anti-BDS law will be catastrophic to Jews.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post BDS is on the ballot in Illinois, sort of appeared first on The Forward.
