Uncategorized
Changing Jewish views on Zionism could scramble the antisemitism debate
Should hostility toward Israel be understood as an expression of animus toward Jews? That question sits at the center of most contemporary debates over antisemitism, and the views of Jews themselves are often cited by partisans on both sides.
Many Jewish leaders have argued that because Zionism — meaning general support for the existence of a Jewish state in Israel — is so widespread among Jews, those on the left should accept that anti-Zionism is at least sometimes a form of antisemitism.
There are other arguments that rest on merits divorced from identity, including that Israel is held to a double standard for antisemitic reasons, or that it’s offensive to deny Jews an independent homeland following the Holocaust. But the claim that support for Israel is a core part of Jewish identity is especially important for both legal and moral reasons — legally, it’s what allows the government to place limits on anti-Zionist campus protests, for example, while morally it suggests that respecting Jews as a group means respecting their attachment to Israel.
The fact that this argument has failed to resonate among many liberals has become itself presumed evidence of antisemitism. “It is a progressive article of faith — much heightened during the Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 — that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences,” David Baddiel, a Jewish comedian, said during his book tour for Jews Don’t Count. “Except, it seems, when Jews do — non-Jews, including progressive non-Jews, are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not the utterance about them was in fact racist.”
Progressives often respond that the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists negates this argument — they are in fact listening to Jews, and those Jews agree with them.
And so the question of who the representative Jews are — those who view attachment to Israel as an important part of Jewish identity, or those who insist there is no inherent connection between the two — has become central to how to understand antisemitism.
The Jewish establishment long held up statistics claiming that 95% of American Jews were Zionist, a claim that always rested on a shaky foundation but one that became widely repeated and helped marginalize the vocal minority of anti-Zionist Jews.
More recently, the Jewish Federations of North America has distributed data acknowledging that only a minority of American Jews identify as “Zionist,” but arguing that other proxies for Zionism — like supporting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state — still approach 90% agreement.
Other data, like the American Jewish Committee’s finding that 83% of Jews in the U.S. consider the statement that “Israel has no right to exist” to be a form of antisemitism, appear to confirm that the vast majority of the Jewish community subscribed to at least a passive form of Zionism.
But a new survey has called this assumption into question. It found that 24% of Jewish adults want to replace Israel with a binational state, nearly double the share who expressed that preference the last time the question was polled a few years ago, and that figure jumps to 44% of Jews under 35 and 51% among non-Orthodox Jews in that age group.
The general trend of younger Jews drifting away from Israel — even as a majority of the overall population remains attached — has been consistent for many years, and if the surge of support for a binational state among Jews under 35 continues, the Zionist majority among American Jews may evaporate over the next 20 or 30 years.
This has serious consequences for who gets to speak on behalf of these Jews. If anti-Zionist Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace represent 5% of the community, it is easy to treat them as fringe voices. Even at 10%, 15% or 20%, they’re still representing a small minority of Jews. But this becomes impossible at 45% or 50%, with significant consequences for who is understood to be a representative Jew in debates over Zionism and antisemitism.
The data itself is solid.
It comes from Jim Gerstein, a Democratic pollster with expertise in polling American Jews for organizations like J Street and the Jewish Democratic Council of America (both of which are Zionist organizations).
Gerstein and his sponsors have long been willing to poll questions that other Jewish organizations won’t, and it was his firm that found in 2021 that 38% of U.S. Jews under 40 believed Israel was an apartheid state.
But there are important caveats.
The current polling suggests that a significant minority of American Jews both say the best resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves replacing Israel with a binational state — widely considered to be an expression of anti-Zionism — while still saying that Israel should be allowed to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and that opposing Israel’s “right to exist” is antisemitic.
This underscores the failure of terms like “Zionist” and “anti-Zionist” to capture how American Jews really feel about Israel.
What does it mean for someone to support the premise of Zionism — a Jewish state in Israel — while simultaneously advocating for its eradication? One possibility is that they might support the concept of a Jewish and democratic state, but believe that Israel is failing as a democracy and prioritize restoring its democratic status over maintaining its Jewish majority.
That might suggest a roadmap for pro-Israel Jewish organizations in the U.S. to focus more on addressing Israel’s far-right shift, rather than simply on defending the country against its American critics.
And what could it mean that some Jews want to replace Israel with a binational state but, at the same time, believe that denying Israel’s “right to exist” is antisemitic? Perhaps they understand a binational state as a legitimate reconstruction of the government, while denying Israel’s “right to exist” sounds like support for the country’s violent destruction.
That could mean that anti-Zionist leaders should do more to condemn the growing share of the left that is expressing support for organizations like Hamas.
Either way, the evidence points to an American Jewish community that is fracturing along generational lines, but the fallout from those divisions could be softened if leaders are willing to open the door to more honest and nuanced conversations than they’ve been ready to have to date.
The post Changing Jewish views on Zionism could scramble the antisemitism debate appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes
(JTA) — JERUSALEM – The United Kingdom threatened to sanction Israelis involved in West Bank settlement expansion after the Jewish state’s Lands Authority opened bids for 1,234 homes in the largely underdeveloped E1 section of the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim.
Construction in E1 “would cut across the heart of Palestine and risks separating the West Bank from East Jerusalem, which would endanger the viability of a two-state solution,” the British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said in a special statement he posted on X on Thursday.
Targeted sanctions, Miliband wrote, would be part of a series of measures his government would take. His office also summoned Israel’s charge d’Affaires Thursday to demand a closure of the bidding process, which first opened on Tuesday, and a withdrawal of the construction project altogether.
“Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution,” he wrote. Miliband has held his position for a month and is part of the new leadership Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham appointed when he took office in July.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attacked Miliband on X, stating that Britain’s “decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate.”
He said that the U.K. government’s “systematic policy of blaming only Israel while ignoring Palestinian extremism has already contributed to a massive wave of antisemitic hatred and attacks against the British Jewish community.”
The Jewish people have the same right to “live throughout the Land of Israel” just as the British people have a right to live anywhere in the U.K., Sa’ar wrote.
Plans to expand the built-up area of Ma’aleh Adumim settlement by constructing some 3,400 housing units on a largely underdeveloped hilltop within the city’s boundaries have been in place since 1994 when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister.
Israel mostly froze those plans under pressure from the international community, including the U.S., with many countries warning that building homes in E1 would harm their diplomatic ties with Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began to advance the project in earnest in 2012 to protest the United Nations General Assembly decision to grant the Palestinians the status of a non-member state and has since pushed the project forward in spurts, particularly during election seasons.
The publication of the bidding process for the homes was first announced on Tuesday and is set to close on Oct. 19, one week shy of the Israeli elections on Oct. 27. Opening the bids is a move that plays well with Netanyahu’s right-wing voter base, which opposes Palestinian statehood and believes that settlements like Ma’aleh Adumim and the E1 area should be annexed into sovereign Israel.
But the move reverberated globally, with the U.K. signing onto a joint condemnation by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, in which they warned that settlement building in E1 distanced peace and undermined the country’s international standing.
They also reminded businesses who might bid for E1 construction that they could face legal or reputational consequences, given that such companies could be in breach of international law.
Palestinian Authority Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh said he welcomed the condemnation, explaining on X that such a position “reflects the importance of the international role in confronting settlement activity and safeguarding the two-state solution.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first
(JTA) — An Argentine federal judge was removed from office Tuesday for a series of antisemitic posts on his social media accounts that constituted misconduct incompatible with his role, an impeachment panel ruled.
Alfredo Eugenio López, who headed Federal Court No. 4 in the coastal city of Mar del Plata, was removed by Argentina’s Jury of Impeachment, a special panel composed of judges, lawmakers and lawyers.
It is the first time in Argentina’s history that a judge has been removed over antisemitic remarks.
In López’s social media posts, the judge referred to the Jewish people as “a brood of vipers,” Israel as a “fictitious state” and Argentinian Jews as “foreigners.” He has also used such terms as “Zionist” and “gay” as insults.
According to the panel, the judge committed acts of “discrimination and the denial of equal rights against the Argentine Jewish community. For the purposes of these proceedings, it is particularly significant that, by acting in this manner, he shattered public confidence in his continued fitness to administer justice impartially.”The case reached the panel through Argentina’s Council of the Magistracy, based in Buenos Aires, the constitutional body responsible for the selection and discipline of federal judges.
The first complaint against López was filed in February 2025 by the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, which is the umbrella organization representing Argentina’s Jewish community. One month later, the Argentine Forum Against Antisemitism also filed a complaint. In July 2025, attorney Yamil Santoro from Apolo Foundation added another one.
In his defense, López argued that his messages were “ subjective and decontextualized interpretations of exchanges on social media, which in no way affect the administration of justice or his impartiality” as a judge. He added that his remarks were unrelated to any pending case and that he had never been recused or removed from any judicial case.
Neither Lopez nor his attorney were immediately available for further comment.
“He was removed because he simply would not stop engaging in hate speech,” jury member Alberto Maques said during a live interview Tuesday on the A24 news channel. “It is absolutely disgraceful for a federal judge to engage in this kind of conduct.”
Maques said there were 15 social media posts that he acknowledged, but more than 50 posts in which he said “outrageous things that are not worth repeating because they truly constituted hate speech.”
“This is not merely an issue of hate speech against the Jewish community. This is someone who lacks common sense,” he added, interviewed by A24 news channel.
Prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings argued that the messages were not isolated political comments but reflected a pattern of hostility toward Jews, Zionism, and the State of Israel.
“No position of authority can shield hatred. This is not a matter of punishing an opinion. It is about sanctioning repeated conduct involving antisemitism, hostility and dehumanization, conduct incompatible with the impartiality, dignity and public trust required of the judiciary,” DAIA said Tuesday in a statement.
“This case sets a precedent: for the first time in more than a century, DAIA initiated proceedings of this nature against a judge. No office is above democracy.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race
(JTA) — California progressive Aisha Wahab defeated AIPAC-backed moderate Melissa Hernandez in a congressional runoff this week, capping off a contest that had become unexpectedly tight after the pro-Israel lobby entered the fray.
The Associated Press called the race between the Democrats — who were vying to replace a disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell — a full two days after polls closed, when Wahab secured 53.1% of votes to Hernandez’s 46.9%, with 95% of ballots tallied. The gap between them grew by four percentage points from Tuesday evening, when Wahab had held a narrow 51% lead to Hernandez’s 49%.
“We stayed focused on the people, and I will fight for this district that raised me,” Wahab said in a Thursday statement, noting her journey “from foster care to Congress” in her East Bay community.
Although Wahab ended up victorious, the narrow initial margin on Tuesday shocked California’s 14th District, given that she had secured a double-digit lead in preliminary races two months ago.
But in the past few weeks, an unforeseen variable appeared to influence the trajectories of the two campaigns: a massive spending push from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee aimed at turning the tides for Hernandez.
Since the beginning of August alone, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, and other affiliated groups spent more than $2.5 million on both boosting Hernandez and denigrating Wahab with negative ads and mailers, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
“This was not a landslide for Wahab by any means,” local Democratic strategist Noah Finneburgh, who is not affiliated with either candidate, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“They narrowed the gap for sure,” Finneburgh added, referring to AIPAC. “They spent millions of dollars attacking Wahab very aggressively.”
These attacks, he explained, did not involve Israel and instead focused on divisive issues for the Bay Area, such as public safety and protecting kids.
“Negative advertising with a persuasive message can be very effective,” Finneburgh said.
In her Thursday night statement, Wahab declared that her “district cannot be bought,” describing the race as “one of the ugliest, most expensive elections we’ve ever seen.”
Prior to this influx of cash and related ads, neither AIPAC nor Israel had played a significant role in this short-lived race — which began in April following Swalwell’s resignation over allegations of sexual assault.
When the district held a special primary to seek Swalwell’s replacement on June 16, Wahab and Hernandez finished as the top-two candidates and moved on to this week’s special general runoff election.
California primaries are “nonpartisan” or “top-two” races, in which the two highest ranking candidates move on to the general election, irrespective of their parties. The top-two in this case were both Democrats, like Swalwell, in a district that the Cook Political Report deems solidly blue.
Even though Wahab will now finish the remainder of Swalwell’s term, she will have to compete with Hernandez again in the November general election for a full term that begins on January 3, 2027.
In a June 16 special primary that preceded this week’s runoff, there was still a massive gap between the two candidates, with Wahab accruing 42.8% of the votes, compared to Hernandez’s 16.8%. A separate primary for the November race, which occurred two weeks earlier, placed Wahab at 38.3% and Hernandez at 17.2%.
Wahab, who will be the first Afghan American in Congress, has focused on affordability, civil rights, education and climate change. Her campaign calls for an end to wars and “prolonged occupations” but only specifically calls out U.S. military activity in “Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.”
Though Wahab has been critical of Israel and its operations in Gaza, she has not been as vocal about the issue as many other progressive colleagues nationwide. She responded “yes” when asked if Israel was committing genocide in a primary debate, but she didn’t include Israel or Gaza in her campaign priorities.
During a recent appearance on far-right influencer Hasan Piker’s livestream, Wahab acknowledged that “it’s not a zero-sum game in the Middle East,” adding that “we can care for all people.” She also referenced a resolution she introduced last year in the California legislature, pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza but also condemning Hamas and demanding the release of the hostages.
“We talk about both Palestinians and the Israeli victims there,” Wahab told Piker. “We talk about holding the perpetrators accountable from both sides.”
Asked if she was in favor of “ending all U.S. aid to Israel,” she responded “yes,” while stressing that “humanitarian aid is important to me, too.”
Wahab has earned the backing of multiple labor unions, the California Democratic Party and Our Revolution, the group formed by Sen. Bernie Sanders to advance the progressive movement. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street also recently invested $108,000 in her campaign, according to the FEC. American Priorities, a pro-Palestinian PAC, also spent at least $200,000 on supporting her.
Hernandez has received endorsements from several police and fire unions, as well as Democratic Jewish Reps. Lois Frankel of Florida and Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Come November, Hernandez will gain one additional asset. Due to statewide redistricting, the 14th District will gain about 26,000 new voters from Dublin, where Hernandez previously served as mayor, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
But Finneburgh said he believes that Hernandez has only a minimal chance of winning that race, especially because Wahab will be heading into that election as an incumbent.
He also suggested that if “she plays her card right,” Wahab could even take some endorsements away from Hernandez.
“There’s going to be people who are going to probably move over from the Hernandez camp and back her,” Finneburgh added. “It’s going to be hard to unseat her.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race appeared first on The Forward.
