Connect with us

Uncategorized

German rabbi at center of ongoing scandal plagiarized his dissertation, newspaper finds

BERLIN (JTA) — The prominent German rabbi who was found to have abused his authority at the seminary he ran also appears to have plagiarized a portion of his 1992 dissertation.

That’s according to a new investigation into Rabbi Walter Homolka published this week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a German newspaper.

More than 60 pages of Homolka’s 240-page dissertation, “From Essence to Existence. Leo Baeck and Religious Identity as a Problem of Continuity and Change in liberal Jewish and Protestant Theology,” consisted of verbatim translation of a German scholarly article – pages 43 to 106, according to the newspaper.

The doctoral dissertation at Kings College London did not include attribution or acknowledgment of the author, the Protestant German theologian Dorothee Schlenke. Only in 1994, when Homolka published his dissertation as a book in English and German, did he explicitly thank Schlenke, now a professor at the University of Education in Freiburg, the newspaper reported.

Kings College London removed public access to the dissertation the day that a reporter asked Homolka’s attorney about allegations of plagiarism, the newspaper reported.

Those allegations were among the long-simmering criticisms of Homolka that burst into public view after a different newspaper, Die Welt, published a blistering report last May about Homolka’s leadership at the Abraham Geiger College, the liberal seminary he founded in 1999, two years after he was ordained in a private ceremony.

Following the report’s revelations of a possible coverup and abuse of power by Homolka, both the University of Potsdam, which houses the seminary, and the Central Council of Jews in Germany initiated investigations. Homolka, who has vigorously contested all accusations, has since stepped back from virtually the Jewish institutions in which he played a formative role.

In its investigation report, released last October, the university said it had not found evidence of criminal actions, thus affirmed Homolka’s position as a professor there.

But the report did confirm abuse of power and noted that accusations of plagiarism, specifically his use of “an unpublished work by the Freiburg professor Dorothee Schlenke (‘Normativity and History,’ 1986),” required further investigation.

University spokesperson Silke Engel confirmed to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the university has asked Kings College London to clarify the status of Homolka’s 1992 dissertation. She added that, while the “abuse of power” report is final, allegations of “scientific misconduct are currently under investigation” and the results will be presented in a second report.

According to the new report, Homolka’s attorneys responded last June to their query about his dissertation, saying that “the unpublished work of Dorothee Schlenke was not the main source for the dissertation at Kings College London, nor does everything about the ‘essence debate’ [a theological thesis] go back to this work.” The lawyers added that “Schlenke’s research was helpful for our client’s dissertation, which is why it is mentioned in both the German and English book editions.”

On Jan. 26, responding to renewed questions, the lawyer confirmed that their client “stands by his previous statements in this regard.”

Neither Kings College nor Dorothee Schlenke have yet replied to queries from JTA.

The Central Council’s final report on allegations of abuse of power is expected to be released in the coming weeks.


The post German rabbi at center of ongoing scandal plagiarized his dissertation, newspaper finds appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Gabbard Rejects Claims She Withheld Whistleblower Complaint from Congress

FILE PHOTO: Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard speaks during a press briefing, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 23, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File Photo

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Saturday disputed claims by lawmakers that she sought to block Congress from accessing a whistleblower complaint, saying she took “immediate action” once notified of the need to provide security guidance for its release.

A top-secret complaint filed with the intelligence community’s inspector general last May by an anonymous government official alleged that the US spy chief’s office sought to prevent the routine dissemination of certain classified intelligence for political reasons.

Gabbard was appointed to her post by Republican President Donald Trump last year.

A November letter from Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lawyer, to Gabbard’s office, which was also shared with the House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committees, alleged that Gabbard had hindered the dissemination of the May complaint to lawmakers by failing to provide necessary security guidance on how to handle it.

Democrats such as Senator Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have said that Gabbard’s agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was required under law to relay the May complaint to Congress within 21 days rather than waiting until February.

In a social media post on Saturday, Gabbard accused Democrats of spreading a “blatant lie.”

Successive inspectors general spanning the presidencies of Trump and his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden did not find the complaint to be credible, Gabbard wrote on X. The 21-day requirement “only applies when a complaint is determined by the Inspector General to be both urgent AND apparently credible,” Gabbard wrote.

Reuters could not verify the contents of the original complaint. The Guardian newspaper and the New York Times have reported that it was related to the handling of an intelligence intercept related to someone close to Trump.

Gabbard also wrote that she previously had not been informed by the inspector generals that the whistleblower had “chosen to send the complaint to Congress, which would require me to issue security instructions.” Gabbard wrote that once made aware of the need to provide security guidance to share the complaint with lawmakers on December 4, she took “immediate action” to do so.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Iran Says Dialogue Remains Key as Nuclear Talks with US Make a “Step Forward”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian attends a press conference in Tehran, Iran, Sept. 16, 2024. Photo: WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Majid Asgaripour via REUTERS

i24 NewsIranian President Masoud Pezeshkian described Friday’s first round of talks with the United States as a “step forward” in efforts to resolve disputes over Tehran’s nuclear program in an X post Sunday morning. The meetings, held with the support of regional governments, marked another round of dialogue aimed at avoiding further escalation.

“Our logic in nuclear matters is the rights enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” the Iranian president said. “Dialogue has always been our strategy for a peaceful resolution.”

The president added that the Iranian nation “has always responded to respect with respect, but it does not tolerate the language of force.”

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made clear over the weekend that zero enrichment is off the table, as well as the ballistic missiles program.

This while on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, announcing his visit to Washington this Wednesday, said he believes any negotiations must include limitations on ballistic missiles and a halting of the support for the Iranian axis.

The talks are part of broader efforts by Washington and Tehran to find common ground on nuclear restrictions, ballistic missile development, and the role of regional proxies amid heightened tensions in the region. US officials have emphasized that diplomacy remains the preferred route to prevent further conflict.

Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes, citing its rights under the NPT, which it joined in 1968. Previous rounds of negotiations have sought limits on uranium enrichment and increased inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Why the Super Bowl antisemitism ad uses a familiar slur

To the editors:

The sticky note cruelly slapped on a high school student’s backpack didn’t have to say “Dirty Jew.”

It could have been any one of dozens of other antisemitic slurs, and believe me, throughout my life and current line of work, I’ve seen and heard them all. At the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate, our Command Center closely tracks the spread of antisemitism online, in all its pernicious forms.

In his piece for the Forward about our new Super Bowl ad, PJ Grisar argues that the ad misses the mark by using “Dirty Jew,” characterizing it as old-fashioned and out of touch with the heavily coded, meme-driven ways students typically express antisemitism today.

We’ve seen all of those slurs gaining traction among younger people that Grisar gave as examples of how kids hate today.

But we didn’t pull “Dirty Jew” out of the history books. In creating the ad, the Blue Square Alliance made a conscious decision to follow the research. Our decisions are based on data, from the one billion social media posts we analyze daily, to our semi-annual 7,000-participant survey on American sentiment toward Jews and antisemitism, to our multi-stage audience testing that is foundational to our creative development.

Here’s the hard data: With nearly 500 million social media impressions since 2023, “Dirty Jew” is a slur that has managed to penetrate all corners of American discourse. Worse yet, its usage online has increased by 174% in the past three years, growing at a significantly higher rate than other slurs. And sadly, the last few years have seen more than a few disturbing and real incidents of the scenario in the ad play out in real life. In U.S. high schools. Right now. Not 1950.

This data-guided approach drove our selection of “Dirty Jew” among all the possible antisemitic slurs as the one to appear on the sticky note. Even though at first glance this phraseology may seem dated, it’s actually timeless and ubiquitous — scarily — and is even outpacing other slurs in frequency of use.

So, whether you’re a Boomer, Millennial or Gen Z, there’s no subtlety to what this ad is showing you: this is antisemitism, pure and simple. And, as Grisar acknowledges in his piece, the challenge of storytelling within a 30-second ad window requires a clear, unambiguous message. In that short time, clarity beats complexity.

It was also important to us to use the high school setting and focus our ad on a younger demographic because that is where we have seen the most concerning trends in antisemitism data. Our most recent survey data shows that Gen Z is three times more likely to witness antisemitism than older generations, and yet nearly twice as likely to say it is not a problem.

At the heart of this campaign is Blue Square Alliance’s dedication to addressing another data point: more than 100 million Americans say they are unengaged in the collective effort to stand up against anti-Jewish hate. We have spent the past few years closely studying this segment, and our surveys show that unengaged Americans often don’t know Jewish Americans, they aren’t familiar with antisemitism (their news feeds and social feeds don’t share the awful stories that we all know too well), and they don’t think antisemitism is a significant problem. Importantly, they don’t feel personal or societal pressure to be an ally.

That’s exactly why we’re using the Super Bowl — a cultural touchstone for the entire country — to raise awareness and model allyship. We test all of our ads, including “Sticky Note” and our earlier ads like “Tony,” specifically with this target audience. What we’re seeing is promising.

Among the unengaged, exposure to our messaging measurably shifts attitudes: viewers become 36% more familiar with recent antisemitic incidents and 41% more likely to see antisemitism as a major problem in the United States. And the impact doesn’t stop at awareness — it moves people to act. After seeing our ads, unengaged viewers are 27% more likely to say they would speak up when they witness antisemitism.

And our work to cultivate allies extends far beyond the television screen. We complement our social media, outdoor and audio campaigns with on-the-ground bridge-building to strengthen connections with Americans across communities and reach those who have not yet been meaningfully involved in this issue. Over the past year, we’ve expanded our programs to bring more people into the conversation, like our partnership with UNCF and Hillel International, now on a 14-stop “Unity Dinner” tour, to connect Black and Jewish students on campuses nationwide. And last fall, we joined with the Appeal of Conscience Foundation to launch “Stand Up Sunday,” an interfaith effort that mobilized hundreds of thousands of congregants across the nation to reject antisemitism and all faith-based hate.

Our founder, Robert Kraft, created the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate in 2019 because he recognized that reversing the rise in antisemitism would require both awareness and empathy.

With “Sticky Note,” we’re showing what it means to be an upstander and giving Americans a clear, accessible way to step off the sidelines. We won’t simply win over the unengaged through displays of toughness and bravado alone, as some people have suggested. To reach the unengaged majority, you have to meet them where they are — not where we, as a deeply committed Jewish community, already stand.

The post Why the Super Bowl antisemitism ad uses a familiar slur appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News