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
NATO Should Launch Operation to Boost Security in Arctic, Belgian Minister says
Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken speaks to journalists as he arrives to an informal meeting of European Union defence ministers in Copenhagen, Denmark, August 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tom Little
NATO should launch an operation in the Arctic to address US security concerns, Belgium’s defense minister told Reuters on Sunday, urging transatlantic unity amid growing European unease about US President Donald Trump’s push to take control of Greenland.
“We have to collaborate, work together and show strength and unity,” Theo Francken said in a phone interview, adding that there is a need for “a NATO operation in the high north.”
Trump said on Friday that the US needs to own Greenland to prevent Russia or China from occupying it in the future.
European officials have been discussing ways to ease US concerns about security around Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Francken suggested NATO’s Baltic Sentry and Eastern Sentry operations, which combine forces from different countries with drones, sensors and other technology to monitor land and sea, as possible models for an “Arctic Sentry.”
He acknowledged Greenland‘s strategic importance but said “I think that we need to sort this out like friends and allies, like we always do.”
A NATO spokesperson said on Friday that alliance chief Mark Rutte spoke with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the importance of the Arctic for shared security and how NATO is working to enhance its capabilities in the high north.
Denmark and Greenland‘s leaders have said that the Arctic island could not be annexed and international security did not justify such a move.
The US already has a military presence on the island under a 1951 agreement.
Uncategorized
IDF Strikes Hezbollah Weapons Sites in Lebanon After Army Denied Its Existence
Israeli strikes targeting Hezbollah’s terror infrastructure. Photo: Via i23, Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law.
i24 News – The Israel Defense Forces carried out airstrikes on a site in southern Lebanon that the Lebanese Army had previously declared free of Hezbollah activity, Israeli officials said on Sunday, citing fresh intelligence that contradicted Beirut’s assessment.
According to Israeli sources, the targeted location in the Kfar Hatta area contained significant Hezbollah weapons infrastructure, despite earlier inspections by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) that concluded no military installations were present.
Lebanese officials had conveyed those findings to international monitoring mechanisms, and similar claims were reported in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.
Israeli intelligence assessments, however, determined that Hezbollah continued to operate from the site.
During a second wave of strikes carried out Sunday, the IDF attacked and destroyed the location.
Video footage released afterward showed secondary explosions, which Israeli officials said were consistent with stored weapons or munitions at the site.
The IDF stated that the strike was conducted in response to what it described as Hezbollah’s ongoing violations of ceasefire understandings between Israel and Lebanon. Military officials said the targeted structure included underground facilities used for weapons storage.
According to the IDF, the same site had been struck roughly a week earlier after Israel alerted the Lebanese Army to what it described as active terrorist infrastructure in the area. While the LAF conducted an inspection following the warning, Israeli officials said the weapons facilities were not fully dismantled, prompting Sunday’s follow-up strike.
The IDF said it took measures ahead of the attack to reduce the risk to civilians, including issuing advance warnings to residents in the surrounding area.
“Hezbollah’s activity at these sites constitutes a clear violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon and poses a direct threat to the State of Israel,” the military said in a statement.
Israeli officials emphasized that operations against Hezbollah infrastructure would continue as long as such threats persist, underscoring that Israel retains the right to act independently based on its own intelligence assessments.
Uncategorized
Some US Senators Skeptical About Military Options for Iran
Demonstrators and activists rally in support of nationwide protests in Iran, outside the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 10, 2026. REUTERS/Tom Brenner
Some US lawmakers in both major parties on Sunday questioned whether military action against Iran is the best approach for the United States as Iranian authorities face growing turmoil.
US President Donald Trump in recent days has left open the possibility of American intervention in Iran, where the biggest anti-government protests in years have led to the Revolutionary Guards blaming unrest on terrorists and vowing to safeguard the governing system.
But at least two US senators sounded notes of caution during interviews on TV networks’ Sunday morning programs.
“I don’t know that bombing Iran will have the effect that is intended,” Republican Senator Rand Paul said on ABC News’ “This Week” show.
Rather than undermining the regime, a military attack on Iran could rally the people against an outside enemy, Paul and Democratic Senator Mark Warner said.
Warner, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” warned that a military strike against Iran could risk uniting Iranians against the United States “in a way that the regime has not been able to.” History shows the dangers of US intervention, said Warner, who argued that the US-backed 1953 overthrow of Iran’s government set in motion a chain of events that gradually led to the rise of the country’s Islamic regime in the late 1970s.
The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that US military and diplomatic officials will brief Trump on Tuesday about options for Iran, including cyberattacks and potential military action.
Iran has said it will target US military bases if the United States launches an attack. But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has often touted a muscular approach to foreign policy, said Trump “needs to embolden the protesters and scare the hell out of the [Iranian] regime.”
“If I were you, Mr. President, I would kill the leadership that are killing the people,” Graham said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” show. “You’ve got to end this.”
Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of the Iranian shah who was ousted in 1979, said on Sunday he is prepared to return to Iran to lead a shift to a democratic government.
“I’m already planning on that,” Pahlavi said on “Sunday Morning Futures.” “My job is to lead this transition to make sure that no stone is left unturned, that in full transparency, people have an opportunity to elect their leaders freely and to decide their own future.”