Uncategorized
Hundreds of rabbis say Biden’s plan to fight antisemitism should embrace a disputed definition
WASHINGTON (JTA) — More than 550 rabbis are calling for the Biden administration’s forthcoming strategy on fighting antisemitism to include a definition of anti-Jewish bigotry that has come under debate.
The letter was sent as progressive groups are seeking to dissuade the administration from using the definition because they believe it chills legitimate criticism of Israel. The letter’s signatories disagree with that assessment.
“IHRA is critically important for helping to educate and protect our congregants in the face of this rising hate,” said the rabbis’ letter, which was sent to the White House on Friday via the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The acronym IHRA refers to the 2016 working definition of antisemitism crafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
“We believe it is imperative that in its National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, the administration formally embrace the IHRA Working Definition as the official and only definition used by the United States government and that it be used as a training and educational tool, similar to European Union countries’ use of the definition in their Action Plans,” the letter said.
The IHRA document consists of a two-sentence definition of antisemitism followed by 11 examples of how antisemitism may manifest. Most of those examples concern speech about Israel that the IHRA defines as antisemitic. Israel critics, and some progressive supporters of Israel, say two of those examples are so broad that they inhibit robust criticism of Israel: “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
The letter’s signatories hail from all three major Jewish denominations, though the list of names includes few leaders of the movements. The Reform movement has said IHRA is a useful guide but has opposed using it in legislation.
Among the signatories are rabbis known to be close to President Joe Biden, including Michael Beals, a Delaware rabbi who played a prominent role campaigning for the president in 2020, and Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker, the rabbi who protected his congregants during a hostage crisis at a Texas synagogue last year.
If the Biden administration does include the IHRA working definition in its plan, it won’t exactly be a surprise. Soon after his inauguration, a Biden administration official called the IHRA document an “invaluable tool,” and one month later, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the administration “enthusiastically embraces it.” The working definition has been endorsed by past administrations of both parties and, in 2019, Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the Department of Education to consider it when weighing civil rights complaints concerning Jews. It has been adopted in varying forms by a range of national and local governments, universities, professional sports teams and other bodies.
But now, according to Jewish Insider, progressive groups are asking the Biden administration to forgo including the definition in a soon-to-be-published strategy to combat antisemitism. Biden said at an event on Tuesday that the strategy would have 100 recommendations for action, and insiders say it may be published as soon as next week.
A number of coalitions have proposed alternative definitions that contain more limited definitions of when anti-Israel speech is antisemitic. The letter from the rabbis does not mention Israel, but cautions against adopting a definition other than IHRA’s.
“We believe the adoption of any definition less comprehensive than the IHRA definition would be a step backwards for this administration and make our work on the ground significantly harder,” it said.
In a meeting this week with members of the press, Biden’s lead antisemitism monitor, Deborah Lipstadt, who is a member of the administration’s antisemitism task force, would not say if the IHRA definition would make it into the strategy, accordin. She said it was “effective” and helped her in her work, but added, “I’m not going to preempt what the White House is going to say or not say.”
William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents, said the notion that the IHRA working definition inhibits Israel criticism has been belied by the “slew of people critical of Israeli policy [who] have not been muted because of the IHRA definition.” Daroff pointed in particular to widespread criticism of the Israeli government’s plan to weaken the judiciary, which critics have said would undercut Israel’s democracy and remove a curb on human rights abuses.
“A comprehensive report on antisemitism might not be comprehensive without defining antisemitism,” Daroff told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “It might undercut American efforts to combat antisemitism abroad by weakening the clear importance of the IHRA definition.”
—
The post Hundreds of rabbis say Biden’s plan to fight antisemitism should embrace a disputed definition appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel to Establish Defense Offices in Former UNRWA Compound
A man handles fallen cables at the Jerusalem headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as the headquarters is dismantled by Israeli forces, in East Jerusalem, January 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo
Israel’s cabinet on Sunday approved a plan to build a defense compound on the site of the recently demolished premises of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in East Jerusalem.
Israel in January demolished structures inside the UN Palestinian refugee agency’s East Jerusalem compound after seizing the site last year, in an act condemned by the agency as a violation of international law.
In a joint statement, the Defense Ministry and Jerusalem Municipality said the new compound would include the establishment of a military museum, a recruitment office and a defense minister’s office.
Defense Minister Israel Katz called the decision one of “sovereignty, Zionism, and security.”
UNRWA, which Israeli authorities accuse of bias, had not used the building since the start of last year after Israel ordered it to vacate all its premises and cease its operations.
A UNRWA spokesperson declined to comment on the Israeli plan.
The agency operates in East Jerusalem, which the U.N. and most countries consider territory occupied by Israel as it was captured from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war. Israel considers all Jerusalem to be its indivisible capital.
UNRWA also operates in Gaza, the West Bank and elsewhere in the Middle East, providing schooling, healthcare, social services and shelter to millions of Palestinians.
“There is nothing more symbolic or justified than establishing the new IDF recruitment office and defense establishment institutions precisely on the ruins of the former UNRWA compound — an organization whose employees took part in the massacres, murders, and atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7,” Katz said.
Israel has alleged that some UNRWA staff were members of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and took part in the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200 Israelis and led to Israel’s war against Hamas.
Uncategorized
Palestinian Leader’s Son Wins Role in Abbas’ Party, Official Says
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, accompanied by his son Yasser, leaves a hospital in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, May 28, 2018. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman
The millionaire businessman son of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has won a steering role in his father’s political party Fatah, a party official said on Sunday, as a succession fight looms for control of the embattled Palestinian Authority (PA).
Yasser Abbas won a seat in elections for the Fatah Central Committee, the party’s highest decision-making body, at its first general conference in almost a decade. Mahmoud Abbas, 90, will remain chairman, it decided.
The PA was set up as an interim administration under the 1990s Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, an umbrella group still internationally recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people. The powerful Fatah party dominates both the PA and the PLO.
Abbas’ son’s foray into politics has fueled speculation that the president may be seeking to position Yasser, 64, to succeed him as head of Fatah.
That has drawn criticism from some Fatah officials, who say Yasser would be unable to unify Palestinians or help them chart a new political future after years without national elections or tangible steps toward statehood.
In the more than two decades since Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Fatah founder Yasser Arafat, Palestinians have come to view the PA as ineffective and corrupt, something denied by Abbas, who has ruled by decree since his mandate expired in 2009.
In 2007, Abbas’ Fatah forces in the Gaza Strip were overpowered by Hamas militants who seized control of the enclave, a year after Hamas swept the Palestinian parliamentary elections.
Peace talks with Israel meant to lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem collapsed in 2014, with expanding Israeli settlements since carving up areas slated for Palestinian statehood. The PA is also grappling with a financial crisis.
Yasser Abbas, who has never held an official role within Fatah or the PA, runs tobacco and contracting firms in the parts of the West Bank where the PA exercises limited self rule. Critics have long alleged that he and his brother Tarek have used public funds to help their businesses, allegations both men reject.
Among others to have won seats on the Central Committee are Majed Faraj, head of the General Intelligence Agency, and former militant group leader Zakaria Zubeidi, released in a Hamas-Israel prisoner-hostage exchange as part of a 2025 Gaza ceasefire.
Uncategorized
Federal Funding for Trump’s Ballroom in Jeopardy After Senate Ruling
Aerial view from the top of the Washington Monument shows construction crews as they continue site preparation for a planned White House ballroom in the area of the former East Wing in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 2, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
A US Senate official on Saturday removed security funding that could be used for President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom from a massive spending package, Democratic lawmakers said, imperiling Republican efforts to devote taxpayer money to the contentious project.
The decision by the Senate’s parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, deals a blow to Trump and his administration, which has sought the money for security purposes related to the ballroom.
Trump has said the construction of the ballroom would be funded by $400 million in private donations. But Senate Republicans are seeking $1 billion in taxpayer funding to the Secret Service for security upgrades to the ballroom and other structures being built beneath it.
FRIVOLOUS DIVERSION OR NECESSARY MODERNIZATION?
Democrats have criticized the ballroom as an expensive and frivolous diversion by Trump at a time when Americans face rising costs such as higher fuel prices. Trump, a real estate developer-turned-politician, has written on social media that it will be “the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World.”
MacDonough ruled that the security funding provision falls under chamber rules that require 60 votes to pass most legislation, according to the office of Senator Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate.
The parliamentarian interprets Senate rules, including whether legislative provisions are permitted. Republican senators still could revise the legislation to try to gain the parliamentarian’s approval.
Ryan Wrasse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, said in a social media post that Republicans would keep trying. “Redraft. Refine. Resubmit,” Wrasse wrote on X.
If Republicans do not succeed, they may be unable to include the ballroom-related funding in a $72 billion spending package they plan to bring to a vote on the Senate floor, with passage expected on a party-line vote with Democrats opposed. The bulk of the legislation is devoted to immigration enforcement.
Republicans have been invoking complex budget rules to try to secure passage without any Democratic support.
“While we expect Republicans to change this bill to appease Trump, Democrats are prepared to challenge any change to this bill,” Merkley said in a statement.
Democrats have opposed funding for Trump’s signature immigration crackdown absent reforms they have sought since federal immigration agents killed US citizens in separate incidents in Minnesota in January.
Republicans have said federal funding for ballroom security is needed to ensure presidential safety, citing an April incident in which an alleged gunman is accused of storming a black-tie media gala in Washington that Trump attended.
The administration has said the ballroom will modernize infrastructure, bolster security and ease strain on the White House, which often relies on temporary outdoor structures to host large events. Trump has said the ballroom will be completed around September 2028, near the end of his second term in office.
Democrats, hoping to win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, are seizing on Republican support of the ballroom to portray Trump’s party as out of touch with the cost-of-living concerns of Americans at a time of rising energy costs driven by the Iran war he and Israel launched in February.
Trump last year ordered the demolition of the White House’s East Wing – constructed in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency and expanded four decades later during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency – to make way for his ballroom.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit challenging the project, arguing that neither the president nor the National Park Service, which manages the White House grounds, possessed the authority to tear down the historic structure or erect a major new facility without explicit congressional approval.
A US appeals court in April allowed construction to continue after the judge handling the National Trust lawsuit issued an order halting the project.