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
US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Condemning Antisemitic Rhetoric by Candace Owens, Hasan Piker
Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
US Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan resolution on Wednesday that condemns “antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric and content” promoted by online streamer Hasan Piker and podcaster Candace Owens.
The resolution addresses the growing influence of online personalities around the world, as well as the global rise in antisemitism in recent years fueled partially by “online disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist rhetoric.” It calls on social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and take action against hatred.
“The rise of digital media platforms has enabled individuals with large audiences to disseminate disinformation, commentary, and political viewpoints to millions of viewers worldwide,” the resolution states. “Such influence carries a heightened responsibility to avoid rhetoric that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against any group, including Jewish individuals and communities.”
The resolution lists several hateful comments from both Piker and Owens.
Piker has repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and even said “it doesn’t matter” if sexual assault took place during the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Owens is notorious for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, tropes, and blood libels about Judaism, Jewish figures, and Israel. She has claimed, for example, that Israel controls the US government and has also downplayed and denied verified details about the Holocaust.
The resolution states that efforts to “downplay or excuse antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of political commentary should be rejected.”
“Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on Oct. 7, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers. With an audience of millions, they have a responsibility to confront hatred and bigotry in every form, not to amplify it to the masses. So, if they won’t call it out, I will.”
“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer added. “It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the far right or the far left. We cannot be selective in calling out antisemitism. When influential voices spread conspiracy theories, promote terrorism, or dehumanize Jewish people, it fuels real-world violence and intimidation. We must stand up and speak out.”
“I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path,” he noted. “That’s what principled leadership is all about.”
Owens has not publicly commented on the resolution, but Piker condemned it in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).
“They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”
Uncategorized
Peru’s President Under Fire Over Antisemitic Remarks Blaming Jews for ‘Pushing’ Germany Into World War II
José María Balcázar was elected as acting president of Peru on Feb. 18, 2026, and will serve until July 28, when the winner of the presidential elections takes office. Photo: ULAN/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect
Peru’s interim president, José María Balcázar, has sparked global outrage after claiming that Jews helped “push” Germany into World War II, drawing mounting calls from world leaders and advocacy groups to retract his remarks and issue a formal apology over what critics condemn as deeply antisemitic.
During a speech marking the 138th anniversary of the Chamber of Commerce of Lima, the Peruvian leader — who assumed power after Congress appointed him to replace ousted former president José Jerí amid corruption allegations — cited The Enemies of Commerce by Antonio Escohotado, invoking its arguments while amplifying long-discredited antisemitic tropes.
“It is a monument to the history of commerce: how bills of exchange were born, how international trade moved, what role Jews played in Germany’s national and international trade, how Germany was pushed into World War II, also partly because of the Jews, because they controlled all the banks, all the commerce, and practiced usury,” Balcázar said.
“All these historical details need to be remembered through Escohotado, so that we can better prepare ourselves and understand the history and hardships of those dedicated to commerce. It is truly interesting,” the left-leaning lawmaker and former judge continued.
Shortly after Balcázar’s remarks gained widespread media attention, leaders of Peru’s Jewish community, opposition figures, and officials from Israel and Germany, as well as other foreign diplomats, swiftly condemned his statements, demanding that he retract them and issue an unequivocal public apology.
In a joint statement, the embassies of Israel and Germany in Peru condemned Balcázar’s claims as “absurd, historically untenable, and a violation of the memory of millions of German Jewish citizens murdered by the Nazis.”
“It should be remembered that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime initiated World War II with the invasion of Poland in 1939. Nazi ideology, rooted in racism and antisemitism, not only discriminated against Jewish citizens but also led to the murder of six million Jews in concentration camps,” the statement read.
“The Holocaust must never be trivialized under any circumstances,” it continued.
Israel claramente rechaza en conjunto con Alemania, toda forma de Antisemitismo.@Agencia_Andina @PresidenciaPE @CancilleriaPeru pic.twitter.com/gnzZ3d1PTt
— Israel En Peru (@IsraelinPeru) April 29, 2026
The Jewish Association of Peru (AJP) also denounced the remarks, describing them as a dangerous revival of “outdated antisemitic theories,” and warning against the spread of such narratives.
“It is shocking that, in the 21st century, arguments reminiscent of the darkest medieval eras are still being used to blame victims of the Holocaust for their own persecution,” AJP said in a statement.
Amid growing domestic and international pressure, the government issued a statement expressing regret that the comments had “created a mistaken perception regarding the Jewish people in the context of the outbreak of World War II.”
“The Peruvian state has consistently maintained that Nazi fanaticism was the driving force behind the war and the perpetrator of the unforgivable genocide against the Jewish people. This longstanding position, which also led Peru to firmly support the creation of Israel, remains unchanged,” the statement read.
“President José María Balcázar strongly condemns the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people during World War II, reaffirms his rejection of antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and expresses his solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust,” it continued.
Balcázar will serve as interim president until July 28, when the winner of this year’s presidential election takes office.
Uncategorized
Lebanon’s Internal Splits Over Talks With Israel Trip Up Saudi Mediation Efforts
An Israeli military vehicle drives past destroyed buildings in Lebanon, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Shir Torem
A growing rift between top Lebanese officials has thrown a wrench into Saudi efforts to help Lebanon’s leaders forge a united position over historic negotiations with Israel, Lebanese sources and foreign officials told Reuters on Thursday.
Saudi Arabia, which sponsored the 1990 agreement that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, has deepened its engagement in recent days with Lebanon, where a shaky US-brokered ceasefire has failed to fully halt the nearly two-month war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Ties between Riyadh and Beirut had been strained for years due to Hezbollah’s power over Lebanese politics and security, but the Sunni kingdom sees an opening after the group was severely weakened by war with Israel in 2024.
The US intended for the April 16 truce between Israel and Lebanon to allow for direct talks on a peace deal, potentially shaking up Lebanon’s internal dynamics and its role in the region. But Lebanese leaders remain at odds over the negotiation format and ultimate goal.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has defended face-to-face talks with Israel in Washington, and has said the ceasefire should be transformed into “permanent agreements.” Although he has stopped short of explicitly calling for a peace deal, two sources familiar with Aoun’s position told Reuters he had privately expressed his readiness to normalize ties with Israel to stop the war.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, is opposed to direct talks, reflecting the Shi’ite terrorist group‘s position. Berri believes Lebanon should seek a non-aggression pact with Israel but not a full peace deal, two Lebanese sources familiar with his position told Reuters.
PLANS DERAILED
Last week, Saudi envoy to Lebanon Prince Yazid bin Farhan visited Beirut to encourage Aoun, Berri, and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to set out a single position on the talks and to signal their unity through a tripartite meeting, according to two senior Lebanese political sources who met with bin Farhan and a Western official briefed on the talks.
But plans to hold such a meeting this week were derailed by rising tensions, all three sources said, after Berri publicly accused Aoun of making statements about negotiations that were “inaccurate, to say the least.”
There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Aoun’s office or from the Saudi government media office. Aoun met Salam on Thursday, the presidency said in a statement, without mentioning Berri.
The splits between Aoun and Berri, who hold their positions according to a power-sharing system that divides Lebanon’s top posts by religion, reflect broader divisions within Lebanese society over the negotiations with Israel.
Some Lebanese see direct talks and a swift peace deal as the only way to end a long history of Israeli invasions into Lebanon.
But Hezbollah and much of its broader Shi’ite Muslim constituency, who have borne the brunt of Israel‘s attacks, are firmly opposed to face-to-face talks and to normalizing ties. Some people protesting against talks earlier this month called for the government to be toppled.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention with Lebanese leaders was driven by the risk of such instability – as well as its concern that Lebanon was moving towards peace with Israel too swiftly, according to a Gulf source with knowledge of the matter, the two senior Lebanese political sources and the Western official.
Bin Farhan sought and received reassurances that Hezbollah would not seek to topple the Lebanese government, and cautioned Lebanese leaders last week that Beirut’s progress towards peace with Israel should not outpace Saudi Arabia’s, the four sources said.
Riyadh’s longstanding position has been that it will only sign up to the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel if there is agreement on a roadmap to Palestinian statehood.
SAUDI KEEN FOR ‘DETENTE’ BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL
US President Donald Trump, keen to expand the accords, said this month he would invite Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks.
Bin Farhan advised Lebanese authorities against Aoun meeting Netanyahu soon, the two senior Lebanese political sources said.
However, Saudi Arabia does want Lebanon to work towards a “detente” with Israel that would halt instability, the Gulf source and one of the Lebanese sources said.
Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,500 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1.2 million since the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2, according to Lebanese authorities. Israel says the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists, who started the conflict by firing drones and rockets at the Jewish state.
The April 16 truce, which facilitated separate negotiations over the Iran war, stopped strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs but not on other parts of Lebanon.