Connect with us

Uncategorized

AIPAC is targeting candidates who want to condition aid to Israel. Who has crossed its red line?

(JTA) — The flood of recent spending by a PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee against a Democratic congressional candidate in New Jersey had many observers scratching their heads: Why would the pro-Israel lobby go after someone who describes himself as pro-Israel, when there was a much more strident critic of Israel in the race?

The PAC’s answer: Tom Malinowski had expressed openness to conditioning U.S. aid to Israel — and that was now AIPAC’s red line.

“We are going to have a focus on stopping candidates who are detractors of Israel or who want to put conditions on aid,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, said in an interview.

The idea that U.S. aid to Israel should be contingent on Israeli behavior was long anathema to most American politicians, advocated only by the far left. But as the war in Gaza dragged on in 2024 and 2025, with Israel continuing its campaign despite the urging of two subsequent U.S. administrations, more lawmakers began to express openness to the idea.

That shift sped up last summer as reports of starvation in Gaza spread, and politicians who’d never previously done so voted to block certain weapons to Israel. Longtime allies in Congress are crossing red lines again and again. The new U.S.-Israel war against Iran is inflaming the discourse once again.

Now, with the November elections coming closer, a hobbled AIPAC is weighing which candidates to back across the country, even as an increasing number of politicians pledge not to accept their endorsement or their affiliated PAC’s money.

Here’s a rundown of who might find themselves in AIPAC’s crosshairs, why, and what they’re saying about the pro-Israel lobby that’s become increasingly toxic among Democratic voters.

Crossing a red line, but open to AIPAC support 

Rep. Adam Smith was endorsed by AIPAC in his most recent election cycle, but has since declared his support for conditioning aid to Israel. The Democrat from Washington state wrote last summer that the United States should “stop the sale of some offensive weapons systems to Israel as leverage to pressure Israel” if it did not take a handful of concrete measures, including implementing a Gaza ceasefire, stopping expansion of settlements in the West Bank and taking “serious steps” to reduce violence there.

Smith, a member of Congress since 1997, will face a nonpartisan primary election in August before a November election between the top two candidates. His opponents include Kshama Sawant, a former Seattle City Council member running as an independent on a “working class, antiwar, anti-genocide” campaign. Sawant is in favor of ending all military aid to Israel, and has called its military campaign in Gaza “a new holocaust.”

Smith is walking the tightrope between supporting Israel and criticizing its government and policies — and, by extension, distancing himself from AIPAC. “I don’t know what AIPAC is going to do in my race,” Smith told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a statement sent by his campaign manager. “I have certainly taken votes and positions that are the opposite of what AIPAC wanted. On the other hand, I still support the right of Israel to exist, and understand the threats that Israel continues to face from Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas among others.”

Smith added that Israel has a right to defend itself against those threats “even if I don’t always agree with how Israel chooses to exercise that right.”

While Smith has taken positions counter to AIPAC’s mandate, he said he would still welcome support from its members.

“I do have a number of constituents in my district who are active members of AIPAC,” Smith wrote. “I speak with them regularly and yes, I would welcome their support if they choose to offer it even considering where we disagree.”

Illinois Rep. Jonathan Jackson is also among the vanishingly few Democrats to say publicly that they would still accept contributions from AIPAC. He also co-sponsored the Block the Bombs to Israel Act last summer, which would restrict the sale of certain U.S.-made weapons to Israel.

Defying AIPAC, and taking their chances

The list of politicians with pro-Israel voting records who are veering away from AIPAC’s stance is growing. It includes a number of politicians who haven’t publicly commented on whether they’d accept AIPAC contributions or an endorsement, but could become a target of its super PAC’s spending.

Oregon Rep. Maxine Dexter was endorsed by AIPAC and benefited from more than $2 million in UDP spending last election. Nevertheless, she was one of 21 cosponsors of legislation accusing Israel of committing a genocide that was backed by anti-Zionist groups like Codepink and Jewish Voice for Peace.

Dexter also cosponsored the unsuccessful Block the Bombs Act last September. In fact, a number of AIPAC’s 2024 endorsees signed onto the bill since it was rolled out in May, including California’s Robert Garcia, Oregon’s Suzanne Bonamici and Andrea Salinas, Sylvia Garcia in Texas and Steven Horsford in Nevada.

Congresspeople with pro-Israel records and some past AIPAC involvement also voted yes on the Block the Bombs legislation, including California Rep. Mark Takano, who traveled on an AIPAC-affiliated trip to Israel and the West Bank in 2013; and California Rep. Jared Huffman, who also traveled to Israel in 2013 with AIPAC’s affiliated educational nonprofit. Both have regularly been endorsed by J Street, the liberal pro-Israel lobby, and not AIPAC.

Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost voted yes on Block the Bombs, three years after writing in a position paper that conditioning aid to Israel “would undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself against the very serious threats it faces.”

Other erstwhile pro-Israel politicians with increasingly critical stances on Israel have seemingly accepted that they, like Malinowski, could become the target of AIPAC’s spending.

That includes Sue Altman, who’s running in New Jersey’s nearby 12th district. In 2024, Altman won the Democratic nomination in a different district as a pro-Israel candidate endorsed by Democratic Majority for Israel, a centrist lobbying group that often overlaps in its endorsements with AIPAC. Altman lost to AIPAC-backed Republican Thomas Kean Jr. in the general election.

This year, according to audio leaked by Drop Site News, which has an anti-Israel bent, Altman said “a lot has happened” since 2024 and she is “going to be at least as left as Tom [Malinowski], if not more so” on aid to Israel.

“And so I can only anticipate that AIPAC, if they did it in 11, they’re going to do it here in 12,” she said, adding that there “might be other PACs too.” Last month, she posted on X, “AIPAC and countless SuperPACs are destroying our democracy by polarizing and misleading the public.”

Et tu, Senator?

In the Senate, in a landmark indication of shifting sentiment, a majority of Democrats voted in favor of Bernie Sanders-led resolutions last July that would block the sale of certain weapons to Israel.

The “yes” votes included eight senators who’d never previously voted to cut any aid to Israel: Jack Reed of Rhode Island; Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois; Patty Murray of Washington; Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware; Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who called himself “ardently pro-Israel” last year.

Reed, who is running for reelection, and Klobuchar, who is mounting a bid for governor, face elections this year. One of Klobuchar’s opponents, community organizer Kobey Layne, says she would prevent the state’s pension systems from “investing in companies facilitating Israeli settlements or military supplies to Israel.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons voted against Sanders’ resolutions. But Coons, who has previously spoken at AIPAC’s annual policy conference, said at an event last year he would be open to limiting weapons sales to Israel.

“If there is no change in direction from the Israeli administration, for the first time I would seriously consider that,” said Coons, who added that he has never “voted to withhold weapons from Israel, from the IDF.” Coons is up for reelection with a primary in September.

Meanwhile, not all of the “yes” votes have been seen as necessarily indicating a total shift on Israel.

Alsobrooks’ vote to cut aid drew concern from some members of the Jewish community to whom she’d expressed her support for Israel on the campaign trail. But Ron Halber, CEO of the Greater Washington Jewish Community Relations Council, said at the time that he spoke with Alsobrooks and believed she was casting a symbolic vote on a bill that had no real chance of passing.

“I don’t believe that this is a precursor to a fundamental shift on support for Israel,” he said.

But for AIPAC, voting in favor of one of Sanders’ numerous Israel resolutions is grounds for an attack ad.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is Jewish, voted to block certain weapons sales last July, as well as in November 2024. AIPAC released an ad attacking Ossoff, plus other lawmakers who supported Sanders’ November 2024 resolutions. DMFI endorsed Ossoff in 2020, but neither it nor AIPAC has backed any candidate in this year’s race.

You can’t fire me; I quit

Cognizant of AIPAC’s worsening public image, a growing number of moderate Democrats say they’ll refuse any campaign donations from the group.

One of those candidates — North Carolina Rep. Valerie Foushee — eked out a primary win last week by less than 1% of the vote. Foushee had been a prominent recipient of AIPAC support in 2022, benefiting from more than $2 million in spending by UDP. Her opponent, Nida Allam, was a Bernie Sanders-backed politician who accuses Israel of committing genocide.

AIPAC’s enemies smell blood in the water. Although Foushee says she will not accept AIPAC contributions during the 2026 campaign, the Working Families Party sent out a fundraising email in February in support of Allam, saying their candidate was “up against AIPAC and crypto billionaires.” (In her 2022 campaign that initially won her the House seat, also against Allam, Foushee was backed by pro-Israel PACs, including AIPAC, and a PAC primarily funded by Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency entrepreneur who has since been convicted of fraud. Foushee beat Allam by more than 9% that year.)

Another North Carolina incumbent, Rep. Deborah Ross, has sworn off AIPAC donations for this year after having previously taken them. The same is true for Kentucky Rep. Morgan McGarvey, who said last year, “We no longer take AIPAC money.”

Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton has gone a step further, saying he would return his approximately $35,000 in donations from AIPAC. Rep. Robin Kelly, who is running for US Senate in Illinois, swore off AIPAC funds and has shifted to a more critical stance toward Israel, including supporting the Block the Bombs Act and accusing Israel of genocide. Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar, who’s received AIPAC contributions, has done the same as Kelly.

Other Democrats, such as New York Rep. Dan Goldman, have sworn off corporate PAC money altogether, including from AIPAC-affiliated PACs as well as DMFI, which recently released its first round of House candidate endorsements.

Goldman has kept his AIPAC ties intact, however, and accepted its endorsement in his campaign against progressive challenger Brad Lander.

It remains to be seen whether UDP will spend in districts like Goldman’s. While a candidate can refuse a contribution, independent ad expenditures may be made without coordination with campaigns. In some instances, those ads are positive and encourage viewers to vote for AIPAC’s preferred candidate.

In the case of New Jersey, AIPAC’s “Anybody but Malinowski” pitch appeared to backfire when a harsh critic of Israel eked out a victory, and only added to the lobby’s growing sense of embattlement.

The post AIPAC is targeting candidates who want to condition aid to Israel. Who has crossed its red line? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Florida redistricting scrambled the map. Three Jewish Democrats found a way through.

Three Jewish Democratic House members from Florida emerged victorious from their party primaries Tuesday amid a redistricting shakeup that scrambled South Florida’s congressional map and threatened to end some of their political careers.

U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel and Jared Moskowitz all won Democratic nominations in newly redrawn districts, each facing different challenges from the new map and their primary opponents.

But their victories only secured their spots on the November ballot. The bigger question is whether they can win reelection under a successful Republican effort designed to flip four Democratic seats. Earlier this year, Florida’s state legislators approved the new congressional lines at the urging of Gov. Ron DeSantis, to increase the number of Republican seats from 20 to 24 of the state’s 28 districts.

The three Jewish incumbents took different routes for survival.

After her old seat was transformed into more favorable territory for Republicans, Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and one of Congress’ most prominent Jewish members, moved into Broward County’s heavily Democratic Black-majority precincts, raising questions about representation in a district with a large Black population.

Wasserman Schultz’s opponents argued that the seat should continue to be represented by a Black lawmaker. In her victory speech, Wasserman Schultz promised “to work every day to live up to the legacy of Alcee Hastings,” the congressman who represented the district from 2013 until he died in 2021.

Frankel, a seven-term Jewish Democrat and outspoken supporter of Israel, also relocated to the neighboring district and easily defeated Lake Worth Beach activist Victoria Doyle, winning 75% of the Democratic vote. The seat is now ranked solid Democratic, according to the Cook Political Report.

Moskowitz survives the left. Now he faces a Jewish Republican.

For Moskowitz, who was elected in 2022 after Ted Deutch retired to become chief executive of the American Jewish Committee, Tuesday’s outcome is likely just the beginning.

Moskowitz, who built a reputation as an outspoken supporter of Israel and one of the more bipartisan members of the House, defeated Oliver Larkin, a democratic socialist and fierce critic of Israel, by a 63%-37% margin.

Larkin called for ending U.S. military aid to Israel and accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. He also associated with popular streamer Hasan Piker, who has been embraced by progressive insurgents even as he has championed terrorist groups as righteous fighters against Israel — leading to accusations he trafficks in antisemitism.

“I’ve taken on extremes in the DSA and won,” Moskowitz said in his victory speech, adding in a post on X:  “My condolences to @hasanthehun.”

But the new district with a substantial Jewish population was deliberately drawn to be far more favorable to Republicans than Moskowitz’s previous seat, which Frankel will now represent, making him one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the state this fall.

His Republican opponent, Scott Singer, the Jewish former mayor of Boca Raton, won a five-way GOP primary with 31% of the vote. Singer, a Miami Beach native and Georgetown Law graduate, highlighted his support for Israel and his roots in the district.

This setup will test Moskowitz’s political strength.

“We’re running in a tough district hand-drawn by Republicans to defeat me, but I plan to win that too,” Moskowitz said on Tuesday night.

“People here don’t want ideological purity tests. They want someone who will lower costs, fight for the middle class, and stand up to antisemitism and hate in both parties.”

Fine easily defeats openly antisemitic Bilzerian

Elsewhere in Florida, Jewish Republican Rep. Randy Fine easily fended off a primary challenge that attracted national attention because of the antisemitic rhetoric of Dan Bilzerian, the social media influencer once known as the “King of Instagram.”

Bilzerian had repeatedly attacked Fine as a “fat Jew,” called Judaism “terrible,” promoted conspiracy theories about Jews and said he wanted to “kill Israelis.” In the final days of the campaign, Bilzerian posted antisemitic dog whistles, expressing confidence that each voter in the district “understands the Jewish problem,” and that “a vote for Randy is a vote for Israel.”

The race was one of several Florida Republican primaries that tested whether a growing online movement on the right — hostile to Israel and that has at times slid into outright antisemitism — could translate social media followings into electoral success.

Fine won 57% of the vote, which is located just under the northeast part of the state and includes Daytona Beach. Bilzerian came in second, securing nearly 19%.

The race to succeed Ron DeSantis 

A somewhat similar dynamic played out in the Republican primary for governor.

U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, the Trump-endorsed frontrunner, won the nomination to succeed DeSantis with about 48% of the vote. James Fishback, a 31-year-old investment manager who made opposition to Israel and AIPAC central to his campaign, finished third with about 10%.

Fishback, who ran what The New York Times described as a “rage bait” campaign, promised to pull Florida’s investments from Israel Bonds, criticized politicians who “visit another country” only to end up “kissing a stupid wall,” and associated himself with antisemitic personalities on the far-right.

Donalds, by contrast, has been a strong supporter of Israel, though he voted in 2024 against the  Antisemitism Awareness Act, bipartisan legislation addressing rising antisemitism on college campuses. He is now listed as a cosponsor of a modified bill that clarifies First Amendment protections. Born in Brooklyn and raised for part of his childhood in Crown Heights, he has spoken of his familiarity with Jewish communities and has maintained relationships with Chabad leaders in Florida.

He will face former Republican Rep. David Jolly, who won the Democratic gubernatorial primary, in November. Both nominees are outspoken supporters of Israel.

A progressive upset for Senate

The night was not a clean sweep for establishment candidates.

State Rep. Angie Nixon, a new member of the Democratic Socialists of America, defeated Alex Vindman, a Jewish refugee from the former Soviet Union, for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Vindman, who became nationally known after testifying during President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, entered the race with greater national name recognition and establishment support. Nixon, who pushed a pro-Palestinian agenda on a state level and actively campaigned with members of the Squad and alongside Larkin, pulled off an upset win, receiving 56% of the vote to Vindman’s 44%.

She will face incumbent Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, who easily won her primary. Moody was appointed to the seat after Marco Rubio left the Senate to become President Donald Trump’s secretary of state.

The post Florida redistricting scrambled the map. Three Jewish Democrats found a way through. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

I drove a friend to a protest in Jerusalem. Now Israel’s government wants to send me to prison.

The people fighting to save Israeli democracy are fighting for the only version of Zionism that can last.’

META: Amit Cahanovich is charged with five counts of joint arson after giving someone a ride to a demonstration where recycling bins were set ablaze.

For nine months I was a political detainee in Israel. My trial is about to begin.

I am as Israeli as they come. My grandparents came to this country — then Palestine, in the 1930s — as Europe began to burn. They helped found a farming village in the Jezreel Valley, Beit Shearim, while most of the family they left behind was murdered in the Holocaust. My late father was a colonel in the Israeli army. I served as a combat soldier in a classified unit, and after Oct. 7, I used my expertise as a data professional to consult for the army during the war. I am married with three young children.

We have no other passports, no other identity than Israeli. But I am now facing charges as an alleged criminal, part of a conspiracy no less — for nothing more than aiding a protest. My story speaks to the lengths of the Israeli government’s efforts to silence dissent.

On  Sept. 3, 2025, around the 700th day of the war in Gaza, the families of hostages still held and tortured in Hamas’s tunnels begged Israelis to take to the streets. More than 40 hostages were already dead in captivity, some murdered, some dead from other causes. Like many Israelis, I could not stand by while the government worked to frame this as the families’ private grief rather than a national emergency — anything to delay a reckoning and stay in power a little longer.

I was arrested after a demonstration day in Jerusalem, where a few recycling bins were set on fire — a common occurrence at such protests, before and since. My alleged part is giving a ride to a friend who allegedly lit one of them. Seven of us now face charges that would fit an organized crime indictment. I’m charged with five counts of joint arson, each carrying a sentence of up to 15 years.

I did not know most of my co-defendants. Lawyers call this a legal dragnet, a familiar tool in democracies that are sliding.

For 33 days I was incarcerated in appalling conditions, classified as a danger to the public, moved between three prisons, and even spent one night in a dungeon, for no real reason. After those 33 days, I was released, but remained on house arrest. A probation officer eventually found I posed no danger. The prosecution fought the finding anyway. It took a High Court justice, ruling on a co-defendant’s appeal eight months in, to confirm what we had argued from the start: that “dangerousness” was being used not to assess a threat but to punish us before any verdict. A month after that ruling, I was released.

Since Oct. 7, Jewish terror against Palestinians in the West Bank has surged, met by law enforcement so weak it barely counts as such. Yet dozens of investigators were assigned to the conspiracy cases that included my own, and, according to press reports, the Shin Bet itself took part in interrogations over recycling bins. The Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent to the FBI, exists to fight terrorism and espionage, not to regulate protest. When a government routes political dissent through its most powerful security service, the question is no longer whether a protester broke a law. It is whether the state has begun treating opposition itself as a threat.

This is not incidental. It is the method of a coalition that unites Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the heirs of the banned, terrorist-designated Kach movement founded by the radical American-Israeli Rabbi Meir Kahane; and with ultra-Orthodox parties that take state money while keeping their youth from modern education and army service. Together they have spent years capturing the institutions meant to check them, the security services, the state comptroller’s office, a weakened judiciary. None of this happens in the dark. It happens on television, because the government’s allies all but run the news agenda. Nearly all criticism gets folded into “Israel as victim.” Antisemitism, though it does exist, gets invoked even when it doesn’t, as a method to silence dissent internationally. Protesters, including hostage families whose only demand was that the state bring their own home, got called traitors and enemies from within.

Meanwhile war has become the alibi. War in Gaza. War in Lebanon. War in Iran. Every operation begins with tactical wins and promises of strategic victory that never fully arrive. Every day of it was used to postpone the prime minister’s own corruption trial a little further.

In 1938 the Yiddish poet Mordechai Gebirtig wrote “Undzer Shtetl Brent” — “Our Town Is Burning” — about the violence closing in on Polish Jews. It calls out to brothers standing with folded arms, watching the fire instead of fighting it. By the time the song became an anthem, the fire had become a catastrophe. I think about it constantly now, not because I believe Jews are fated to see danger only once it’s too late, but because I fear we are, again, mistaking smoke for weather.

Israel is scheduled to hold elections in late October. Ahead of them, the government’s allies are working to inflame the West Bank, the same cynical mechanism that has worked before: unite a divided public against an external enemy, and postpone the reckoning again. There are even signs that the government could try to postpone the election using so-called emergency regulations or putting up other obstacles. Netanyahu himself once made this exact argument when he demanded former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resign while on trial for corruption, warning that a leader facing charges can never be trusted to put the country’s survival ahead of his own. He was right then. The dynamic he described is now his own government.

The people fighting to save Israeli democracy are fighting for the only version of Zionism that can last: an independent judiciary, free elections, equality before the law, a state that answers to its citizens rather than demanding loyalty to one man. If this government is not replaced, if it teaches a country that dissent is danger, the price will not be paid only by protesters like me. It will be paid by the dream my grandparents crossed the sea to build.

Amit Cahanovich is a native Israeli, married and a father of three, and an independent data consultant. He recently spent nine months as a political detainee in Israel and is now writing a play based on his experience.

The post I drove a friend to a protest in Jerusalem. Now Israel’s government wants to send me to prison. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Whistleblower claims Trump’s campus antisemitism crackdown was a cash grab

A new whistleblower report alleges that the Trump Administration’s investigations into campus antisemitism were merely efforts to extract millions from universities, under the pretense of rooting out hate.

The report, written by the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project on behalf of former Department of Justice Attorney Haley Van Erem, alleges that the administration’s antisemitism task force carried out “politically motivated” investigations that were “unsupported by facts and contrary to law.” The investigations did not follow proper Title VI procedure, she said, adding that they were opened with predetermined outcomes, and did not respect the First Amendment.

The report has prompted Jewish U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) to initiate an investigation into the allegations. The Nexus Foundation, a watchdog organization dedicated to combating antisemitism and protecting free speech, released a statement supporting Raskin and Van Erem.

This is not the first time Raskin or Nexus have criticized the administration’s antisemitism task force. Many left-leaning Jewish organizations have long criticized Trump’s efforts, with Raskin describing them as “weaponizing, distorting and exploiting the reality of antisemitism to attack academic freedom.”

In a statement to the Forward, the DOJ denied that Van Erem worked on university investigations. “And for all matters, the Department stands behind the integrity of these investigations,” a spokesperson wrote.

According to the report, Van Erem was involuntarily re-assigned from her role as a DOJ Civil Rights attorney to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in order to investigate alleged antisemitism at medical schools — a probe prompted by a single New York Post article about protesters shouting “Free Palestine” and wearing Palestinian flags or keffiyehs at a medical school graduation.

Unable to find enough evidence of antisemitism at medical schools, Van Erem said, the task force soon expanded its probe to entire universities to increase the chances of finding it.

“This was one of the first major indications to the DOJ assignees that the investigations were not grounded in law or fact,” the report reads.

HHS did not immediately respond to request to comment.

Van Erem also criticized the administration for breaking the protocol of Title VI investigations, pursuing enforcement before first issuing a finding and allowing universities to resolve issues voluntarily. That enforcement: withholding funds.

To restrict funds, the administration used a separate legal mechanism that allows them to do so “for convenience” and for “not satisfying purpose.”

“The funding suspensions were meant to be coercive irrespective of investigative findings,” according to the report.

Van Erem and colleagues found no evidence  at Brown of “deliberate indifference” to antisemitic incidents, the report said. But a supervisor allegedly discouraged sending Brown a closure letter stating those findings. According to the report, the administration settled with Columbia before an investigation was finished. Harvard sued the Trump administration, before its own investigation was complete, claiming the funding freeze was unlawful.

Van Erem said she observed findings of discrimination that she believed were actually “protected First Amendment activity” and believed that the task force’s settlement “content-based conditions” violated free expression.

Brown and Columbia both settled with the administration to restore federal funding, with Columbia paying the government $200 million and Brown agreeing to pay $50 million to Rhode Island workforce development organizations. A federal judge recently dismissed the Trump administration’s antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard, saying antisemitic incidents were “too isolated and episodic” to constitute a Title VI violation.

 

The post Whistleblower claims Trump’s campus antisemitism crackdown was a cash grab appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News