Uncategorized
In Germany, a new group reflects a schism among liberal Jewish congregations
(JTA) — A new association of egalitarian Jewish congregations has launched in Germany, in the latest consequence of a scandal that has been unfolding within German Judaism for nearly a year.
The Jewish-Liberal Egalitarian Union, or JLEV according to its German acronym, marks a split with the existing body representing liberal Judaism in Germany, the Union of Progressive Jews.
The two groups both represent non-Orthodox synagogues in Germany, but the UPJ was created as a subsidiary of the World Union of Progressive Judaism, based in the United Kingdom. The new group, on the other hand, is overseen by the Central Council of Jews in Germany, whose role includes distributing government funding to Jewish institutions.
“A liberal association under the umbrella of the Central Council strengthens the idea of diversity in unity,” a spokesman for the organization told JTA in explaining the motivation behind the move.
The crucial difference between the two groups, however, is not who oversees them but that JLEV has no association with Walter Homolka, the rabbi at the center of the ongoing scandal.
Homolka was a founder of the UPJ in 1997, as well as of several other German Jewish organizations including its progressive seminaries. Since allegations broke last May that he had abused his power as the rector of the liberal Abraham Geiger College rabbinical school, Homolka has stepped back from his many roles in German Jewish organizations.
But after the embattled rabbi declined to run for another term as UPJ chair in the last election in December, a new board was elected that, critics said, was friendly to Homolka and showed little sympathy for those who claimed they had been harmed by him.
“We feel we are not represented any more by the UPJ,” Rebecca Seidler, head of the liberal Jewish communities of Hanover and chair of the State Association of the Jewish Communities of Lower Saxony, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency at the time.
Now, Seidler is a cofounder of the new organization, and her community is one of the nine to join it. The new group says it will offer adult education and youth programs. It also requires members to comply with a strict ethical code.
Seidler and other JLEV founders said in a statement that they determined it was “necessary to set up a separate umbrella organization” after the UPJ responded “in a strange way” to the accusations against Homolka.
“They trivialized, relativized and took a one-sided approach, failing to consider and pay attention to the critical voices of member communities,” the group’s statement said.
Exactly what it means for Germany to have two progressive Jewish congregational associations is uncertain.
The Germany split is not the first change in European progressive Jewish communities this week. Earlier, Britain’s liberal and Reform Jewish organizations merged into a new “Progressive Judaism” movement within the World Union of Progressive Judaism.
But while the group welcomed that development, a spokesperson told JTA in an email that it “isn’t making any comment at this time” about the changes in Germany.
It is estimated that, out of about 90,000 registered members of Jewish communities in Germany, about 5,000 affiliate with liberal or egalitarian congregations. There may be as many as 100,000 more people who identify as Jewish but don’t belong to a formal community.
The UPJ currently lists 32 member communities, including the nine defectors. It will continue to represent liberal communities across Germany — at least for now, and as long as communities choose to ally themselves with it.
“From an organizational logic, it does not make sense for communities to be members of both organizations,” the Central Council spokesperson told the JTA, adding that while the council has no legal obligation to support the UPJ, “as an organization of liberal Judaism, in which some member congregations of the Central Council are also members, it will continue to be supported according to the principles of the Central Council.”
Talks are underway about a formal funding agreement for JLEV.
As for the UPJ, concern about the competing organization appears to be slight.
“Every liberal Jew has the freedom to organize himself,” UPJ chair Irith Michelsohn told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an email, noting that she had known about the launch of the new group “for some time already.” She added, “There are no changes for us.”
—
The post In Germany, a new group reflects a schism among liberal Jewish congregations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.