Uncategorized
Beyond the ‘Day of Hate’: The best strategy to keep American Jews safe over the long term
(JTA) — My synagogue sent out a cautiously anxious email yesterday about an event coming this Shabbat, a neo-Nazi “Day of Hate.” The email triggered fuzzy memories of one of the strangest episodes that I can remember from my childhood.
Sometime around 1990, in response to local neo-Nazi activity, some Jews from my community decided to “fight back.” I don’t know whether they were members of the militant Jewish Defense League, or perhaps just sympathetic to a JDL-style approach. When our local Jewish newspaper covered the story, it ran on its front cover a full-page photo of a kid from my Orthodox Jewish high school. The photo showed a teenage boy from behind, wearing a kippah and carrying a baseball bat that was leaning threateningly on his shoulder.
As it happens, “Danny” was not a member of the JDL, he was a kid on his way to play baseball. Sometimes, a baseball bat is just a baseball bat. But not for us anxious Jews in America: We want to see ourselves as protagonists taking control of our destiny, responding to antisemites with agency, with power, with a plan. I’m sorry to say that as I look around our community today, it seems to me that we have agency, and we have power — but we certainly don’t seem to have a plan.
The tactics that the American Jewish community uses to fight back against antisemitism are often ineffective on their own and do not constitute a meaningful strategy in the composite. One is that American Jews join in a partisan chorus that erodes our politics and fixates on the antisemitism in the party they don’t vote for. This exacerbates the partisan divide, which weakens democratic culture, and turns the weaponizing of antisemitism into merely a partisan electoral tactic for both sides.
Another tactic comes from a wide set of organizations who have declared themselves the referees on the subject and take to Twitter to name and shame antisemites. This seems to amplify and popularize antisemitism more than it does to suppress it.
A third common tactic is to pour more and more dollars into protecting our institutions with robust security measures, which no one thinks will defeat antisemitism, but at least seeks to protect those inside those institutions from violence, though it does little to protect Jews down the street. Richer Jewish institutions will be safer than poorer ones, but Jews will continue to suffer either way.
A fourth tactic our communal organizations use to fight antisemitism is to try to exact apologies or even fines from antisemites to get them to retract their beliefs and get in line, as the Anti-Defamation League did with Kyrie Irving, an approach that Yair Rosenberg has wisely argued is a no-win proposition. Yet another tactic is the insistence by some that the best way to fight antisemitism is to be proud Jews, which has the perverse effect of making our commitment to Jewishness dependent on antisemitism as a motivator.
And finally, the most perverse tactic is that some on both the right and the left fight antisemitism by attacking the ADL itself. Since it is so hard to defeat our opponents, we have started beating up on those that are trying to protect us. What could go wrong?
Steadily, like a drumbeat, these tactics fail, demonstrating themselves to be not a strategy at all, and the statistics continue to show a rise in antisemitism.
Perhaps we are too fixated on the idea that antisemitism is continuous throughout Jewish history, proving only that there is no effective strategy for combating this most persistent of hatreds.
Instead, we would do well to recall how we responded to a critical moment in American Jewish history in the early 20th century. In the aftermath of the Leo Frank lynching in 1915 – the murder of a Jewish man amid an atmosphere of intense antisemitism — Jewish leaders formed what would become the ADL by building a relationship with law enforcement and the American legal and political establishment. The ADL recognized that the best strategy to keep American Jews safe over the long term, in ways that would transcend and withstand the political winds of change, was to embed in the police and criminal justice system the idea that antisemitism was their problem to defeat. These Jewish leaders flipped the script of previous diasporic experiences; not only did they become “insiders,” they made antisemitism anathema to America itself. (And yes, it was the Leo Frank incident that inspired “Parade,” the forthcoming Broadway musical that this week attracted white supremacist protesters.)
For Jews, the high-water mark of this strategy came in the aftermath of the Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh. It was the low point in many ways of the American Jewish experience, the most violent act against Jews on American soil, but it was followed by a mourning process that was shared across the greater Pittsburgh community. The words of the Kaddish appeared above the fold of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. That is inconceivable at most other times of Jewish oppression and persecution. It tells the story of when we are successful – when antisemitism is repudiated by the general public. It is the most likely indicator that we will be collectively safe in the long run.
We were lucky that this move to partner with the establishment was successful. I felt this deeply on a recent trip to Montgomery, Alabama. Seeing the memorials to Black Americans persecuted and lynched by and under the very system that should have been protecting them from the worst elements of society is a reminder that not all minorities in America could then — or today — win over the elements of American society that control criminal justice.
Visitors view items left by well-wishers along the fence at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on the first anniversary of the attack there, Oct. 27, 2019. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
A strategic plan to defeat antisemitism that must be collectively embraced by American Jews would build on this earlier success and invest in the infrastructure of American democracy as the framework for Jewish thriving and surviving, and continue the historic relationship-building that changed the Jews’ position in America. It would stop the counterproductive internecine and partisan battle that is undermining the possibility of Jewish collective mobilization.
It means more investment, across partisan divides, in relationships with local governments and law enforcement, using the imperfect “definitions of antisemitism” as they are intended — not for boundary policing, but to inform and help law enforcement to monitor and prevent violent extremism. It means supporting lawsuits and other creative legal strategies, like Integrity First for America’s groundbreaking efforts against the Unite the Right rally organizers, which stymie such movements in legal gridlock and can help bankrupt them.
It means practicing the lost art of consensus Jewish collective politics which recognize that there must be some baseline agreement that antisemitism is a collective threat, even if any “unity” we imagine for the Jewish community is always going to be be instrumental and short-lived.
It means supporting institutions like the ADL, even as they remain imperfect, even as they sometimes get stuck in some of the failed strategies I decried above, because they have the relationships with powerful current and would-be allies in the American political and civic marketplace, and because they are fighting against antisemitism while trying to stay above the partisan fray.
It means real education and relationship-building with other ethnic and faith communities that is neither purely instrumental nor performative — enough public relations visits to Holocaust museums! — so that we have the allies we need when we need them, and so that we can partner for our collective betterment.
And most importantly, it means investing in the plodding, unsexy work of supporting vibrant American democracy — free and fair elections, voting rights, the rule of law, peaceful transitions of power — because stable liberal democracies have been the safest homes for minorities, Jews included.
I doubt we will ever be able to “end” individual antisemitic acts, much less eradicate antisemitic hate. “Shver tzu zayn a Yid” (it’s hard to be a Jew). We join with our fellow Americans who live in fear of the lone wolves and the hatemongers who periodically terrorize us. But we are much more capable than we are currently behaving to fight back against the collective threats against us. Instead, let’s be the smart Americans we once were.
The real work right now is not baseball bats or billboards, it is not Jewish pride banalities or Twitter refereeing: It is quiet and powerful and, if done right, as American Jews demonstrated in the last century, it will serve us for the long term.
—
The post Beyond the ‘Day of Hate’: The best strategy to keep American Jews safe over the long term appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Jewish moderate Julie Menin claims victory as next City Council speaker
(JTA) — Julie Menin, a Jewish New York City Councilwoman in Manhattan, declared victory on Wednesday in the race for council speaker, positioning herself as a potential moderating influence on Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s progressive agenda.
The election does not officially happen until January, but Menin, a moderate Democrat who represents neighborhoods including the Upper East Side, announced that she had gained the support of a “super majority” of 36 votes out of the council’s 51 members.
“I am honored and humbled by the trust and faith that my colleagues have put in me to lead the City Council as a force of action for New York families,” Menin said in a statement on Wednesday.
If elected, Menin would be the first Jewish speaker in the City Council’s history.
The council serves as a separate branch from the mayoral office and is responsible for passing laws and controlling key aspects of the city’s budget, this year set at $116 billion. A supportive speaker is seen as essential to carrying out a mayor’s agenda.
Menin secured support from many moderate Democrats and Republicans. Her opponent, Brooklyn’s Crystal Hudson, has been backed by the council’s progressive bloc and is widely seen as more aligned with Mamdani, who takes office Jan. 1.
Menin, whose grandmother and mother survived the Holocaust before immigrating to New York City, has frequently advocated for Holocaust education and efforts to combat antisemitism as a councilwoman.
She has also made pro-Israel advocacy a part of her public image, marching in the Israel Day Parade in May to advocate for the release of the hostages and going on a solidarity trip to Israel to visit Kibbutz Kfar Aza in February 2024. (Mamdani has said he would not visit Israel or attend the Israel Day Parade as mayor.)
While Mamdani has frequently reiterated his commitments to protecting Jewish New Yorkers, his record of support for the boycott Israel movement and past anti-Israel rhetoric stoked fears in some Jewish New Yorkers during his campaign, including in Menin’s district, which supported his opponent.
Last week, after pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated against an Israeli immigration event at the Park East Synagogue, which is located in Menin’s district, Mamdani said that he believed “sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.” In contrast, Menin said that the protest was “not acceptable” in a post on X.
“Congregants must have the right to worship freely and to enter and exit their house of worship without impediment,” Menin wrote. “Protests must have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.”
But while Menin has been seen as a potential moderating force on Mamdani, she has also cast herself as willing to collaborate with the incoming mayor.
“With this broad five-borough coalition, we stand ready to partner with mayor-elect Mamdani’s administration and deliver on a shared agenda that makes New York more affordable through universal childcare, lowers rent and healthcare costs, and ensures that families across the city can do more than just get by,” Menin said in a statement.
The post Jewish moderate Julie Menin claims victory as next City Council speaker appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish leaders must work with educators to battle antisemitism — not demonize us
To the editors:
A conversation about education and antisemitism was held at last week’s Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly that did not significantly feature educator voices. That’s truly unfortunate. As an educator, union leader, deeply committed Jew and the wife of a rabbi, I can attest that this issue is always on my mind.
I was troubled by the attacks on teachers’ unions that marked the JFNA gathering, with some leaders attacking unions like the National Education Association. I lead another teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers, and though we weren’t mentioned, we all face similar issues.
I see and engage with young Jews all the time. Many are members of my union — young, idealistic teachers who want to make a difference in the classroom, and who know that public education is the key to a more equal and just United States. Many teach in the public schools precisely because of their Jewish values. But they, like many Americans and many American Jews, are alienated from Israel because of the actions of the Israeli government.
We can’t ignore the anti-democratic actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, the settler violence in the West Bank or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We need to honestly confront these issues head-on, just as we simultaneously demand that Jewish voices are not silenced and Jewish students and teachers feel safe.
The American public education system has deeply benefited our extraordinary American Jewish community. Today’s families deserve the same stellar education, one that offers economic opportunity and social advancement. To treat teachers as the enemy, rather than allies to work with, puts that goal at risk. By demonizing teachers’ unions rather than engaging with us, Jewish organizational leadership is supporting those who seek to undermine public education.
And we are eager to work toward these shared goals. My union spends significant time educating teachers about antisemitism. We have a national partnership with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs through which we pair union locals with local Jewish leaders across the country with the aim of bettering understanding and cooperation.
Our New York City local, the UFT, has partnered with the city’s Department of Education to promote a new curriculum called “Hidden Voices,” about prominent Jews through the decades. And while leaders at JFNA suggested that teachers’ unions are contributing to poor education about Israel, the AFT proudly partners with Israeli organizations, including the Jewish/Arab Hand in Hand Schools network. We host Israeli NGOs and trade unionists at our conventions and in special meetings with our leadership.
Instead of continuing to point fingers and gloss over the reality that we face in today’s truly complex world, we need to create partnerships and include everyone who seeks Jewish safety.
To combat the many threats that face the Jewish community, inside of schools and beyond them, we need to show partnership and promise — not division.
The post Jewish leaders must work with educators to battle antisemitism — not demonize us appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
More than 25% of Israelis want to leave the country. How did we get here?
Amid this brutal cycle of war, trauma and sacrifice, more than 25% of Israelis are now considering leaving Israel behind.
The stunning results of this survey, conducted in April 2025 and published on Sunday by the Israeli Democracy Institute, reveal an existential fissure in the country. Israelis are losing faith in their nation’s future, and they don’t believe they can get it back.
It’s a shocking turnaround, after narratives of Israeli society’s exemplary resilience and social cohesion sprang up in the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 massacre. And while this survey predates major events like the Israel-Iran war and the ceasefire and hostage deal, its findings align with other concerning trends.
“Tens of thousands of Israelis have chosen to leave Israel in the past two years,” Gilad Kariv, chairperson of the Knesset’s Research and Information Center, said at a Knesset meeting in October. “This is not a wave of emigration; it’s a tsunami of Israelis choosing to leave the country.”
Since the beginning of 2022, 125,000 more people have emigrated from Israel than have immigrated to it. The number of official requests to terminate residency in 2024 was more than double the total requests made between 2015 and 2021.
It’s not just because war is difficult. It’s because the last few years have posed a fundamental challenge to Israel’s promise to global Jewry — and Israel is failing.
Israel has never been an easy country to live in. Residing there means facing economic hardship, a constant threat of violence, existential dread and insufferable bureaucracy. What drew immigrants in and kept citizens around was their shared commitment to the Jewish state’s ultimate vision: a renewed Jewish homeland serving its inhabitants, built on “freedom, justice and peace.”
That sense of shared purpose was crucial to Israel’s founding. “The State of Israel and the Jewish people share a common destiny,” David Ben-Gurion, the country’s founding prime minister, wrote in a 1954 letter. “This state cannot exist without the Jewish people, and the Jewish people cannot exist without the state.”
As Anita Shapira explains in her 2015 book Ben-Gurion: Father of Modern Israel, Ben-Gurion recognized the need to keep all Jews invested and connected to the state of Israel — and the danger of severing that connection.
But in recent years, Israel’s leaders have failed to nurture that investment and connection. What distinguishes this period from the conflict-ridden years around the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars is how out of sync a vast number of today’s Israelis are with their own state and government.
And the IDI’s survey reveals just how far the country has strayed from Ben-Gurion’s vision.
Those more likely to leave are less religious and more liberal — a demographic politically isolated in a country steered by a power-hungry and extremist right-wing government. While the Oct. 7 attack and the first months of war pulled many Israelis toward new or deeper religious commitment, the grueling conflict, which dragged on for months without a clear endgame, also pushed others further and further away.
Just before the United States-brokered ceasefire went into effect on Oct. 5, the Institute for National Security Studies reported that 72% of Israelis were dissatisfied with the government’s handling of the war, while more than 40% thought the country was worse off since Oct. 7. More than half believed another Oct. 7 could happen again.
But this fundamental mistrust of the country’s leadership took hold well before Oct. 7. It goes back to 2022, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brought far-right extremists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich into the Israeli political mainstream. Then, his government’s widely reviled plans for a judicial overhaul in 2023 brought fears of Israeli authoritarianism into reality.
The Oct. 7 attack could have been a wake-up call that Israel desperately needed to reverse this course. Instead, within a year’s time, it became clear that Netanyahu was still guided by his own interests — prolonging the war, sabotaging hostage deals and turning Israel into an international pariah.
Israel’s economy has also suffered from this turbulence. The tech sector has seen investment decline and talent flee, while the cost of living has worsened.
Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, warned me of the consequences of all these trends during a podcast interview in August 2024.
“My deepest fear is for a mass emigration of young secular Israelis, those Israelis who are the backbone of the next generation of startup nation, of Israel as an economic success story,” he told me. “I’m terrified of that, and I see this government ultimately as a threat to the Israeli success story.”
It is understandable why much of the Israeli electorate feels disillusioned, unsafe, nihilistic and betrayed. And those feelings ought to be a cause for major concern.
Jewish tradition repeatedly warns that civil fragmentation can lead to a break between Jews and the land of Israel. The Talmud explains that senseless hatred and a breakdown of trust between Jews have historically led to ruptures between our people and our homeland. This is precisely what organizations like The Fourth Quarter — a grassroots movement seeking to build consensus among Israelis through dialogue — seek to repair. We cannot know if it will be enough.
What we do know is that Israel — both its citizens and its leaders — must respond to those who feel abandoned by the country that promised to be a Jewish homeland for all.
If we want Israelis to remain committed to their country, the government must make good-faith efforts to show they still have a home here.
That means, first, political reform. There must be real political accountability with independent probes into Oct. 7 — not the internal probe the government currently plans — long-overdue elections, and a fresh focus on creating economic stability backed by strategic foreign policy. Above all, there must be restored democratic norms, and a shelving of authoritarian plans.
Unfortunately, Netanyahu and his government seem uninterested in repairing what they have broken. The Jewish state will not crumble overnight if Netanyahu and his ilk remain indifferent to these needs. But the country’s morale will weaken. And everything that has kept it strong and surviving — its defenses, its international supporters, its belief in its own mission — will do the same. The educated, the entrepreneurial and the young will leave, and they will not look back.
Israelis need something to believe in. Without that, they will flee a country unrecognizable to them.
The post More than 25% of Israelis want to leave the country. How did we get here? appeared first on The Forward.