Uncategorized
Israel’s reputation is in free fall. One radical change could help
Israeli settlers spent months ramping up a campaign of terror against Palestinians in the West Bank — torching mosques, Qurans and farmland; attacking innocent civilians; and defacing IDF bases — before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even weakly condemned these “riots” for violating Israeli law. And that statement, issued on Sunday, only came because of international outrage.
If you want to understand why Americans are abandoning Israel, that long silence is your answer. Israel’s opponents frame the state as hellbent on ridding the land of Palestinians by any means necessary, and the American public increasingly believe them. When Israel’s leaders and supporters turn a blind eye to lawless settlers, and the Palestinian suffering they create, that belief is reinforced.
For that to change, the response to settler violence has to change. Israel and its supporters must try to expunge this extremism from its circles.
That will not be easy, because settler violence is not a new phenomenon.
For the last 50 years, a radical ideology preaching Israeli dominance, and advocating Palestinian expulsion, has spread among settlers’ ranks. And they have come to expect impunity for extremist acts, because for much of that time, Israeli leadership failed to impose strict or meaningful consequences.
The attacks hit a fever pitch in the last two years, reaching an all-time high this October. In one notable example from two years ago, swaths of settlers rampaged through the Palestinian village of Huwara, leaving one Palestinian dead, about 100 injured and the entire town ablaze. The Israeli army did not intervene, and hardly anyone was punished.
The fact that extremists like the far-right cabinet ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — who often defend settlers in these cases — are prominently serving in Israel’s government indicts the Jewish state even further.
I understand that criticizing the state of Israel is a big no-no among pro-Israel organizations, which usually excuse their silence by saying they do not comment on domestic Israeli affairs. But this inaction is de facto acceptance. It’s a long-standing norm that needs to change.
In Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life, Joshua Leifer traces this loyalty to the 1967 Six-Day War, which provoked a broad deepening of Zionist sentiment among American Jews. The result was a relationship in which diaspora supporters of Israel were expected to support the state without criticism — because criticism was seen as playing into the hands of Israel’s enemies, who had so recently posed an existential threat to the state’s continuance.
The overwhelming power of that expectation was perhaps best shown in the experience of Elie Wiesel — the Nobel Prize-winning human rights defender who survived the Holocaust — who was met with outrage when he tried to critique Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank in the 1970s, particularly taking aim at settlement expansion.
“Wiesel was so upset by the Israeli reaction that he made a pledge to himself never to criticize Israel again,” writes Joseph Berger in his 2024 biography Elie Wiesel: Confronting the Silence. “And he never did.”
Against this backdrop, for pro-Israel groups and advocates to stand against settler violence is no simple choice — but it is doable.
The American Jewish Committee consistently calls out acts of settler violence, urging accountability and punishment. Other groups — such as the Anti-Defamation League — did the same in prior years, although the drop-off of such advocacy over the last few years has been stark.
But much remains to be done, because the silent devotion to Israel by generations past does not work today. Not for Americans at large, and certainly not for young American Jews.
“For an older generation of American Jews, a mythologized vision of a progressive, social democratic Israel served as a source of moral inspiration,” Leifer writes in Tablets Shattered. “That view is much less prevalent today.”
While many young Jews still view Israel in such a light, Leifer explains, increasing numbers “have only known Israel as an authoritarian state and regional military power hurtling down a path of ever more extreme ethnonationalism.”
Pairing these conceptions with countless videos depicting masked Israelis brutalizing Palestinians and ransacking their properties in the West Bank, in addition to the devastation of the war in Gaza, it is no wonder why public opinion on Israel is in free fall.
American sympathy for Israel hit a 25-year low in March 2025. Views of Israel and its government worsen each year. Even American Jews are drifting — with 41% opposing more U.S. military aid to Israel and 39% believing Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The violence in the West Bank is almost certainly not the primary factor in that slide. But silence on it suggests that Israeli violence against Palestinians is acceptable — a stance that needs urgent and public correcting.
Condemnation is a necessary step, but words will not be enough to change the minds of opponents of the Jewish state. More crucially, supporters of Israel need to start taking steps to systematically combat extremism.
First, they must show zero tolerance for those who excuse or minimize crimes like those committed by settlers in the West Bank. Words without actions are meaningless, so pro-Israel groups must take steps to weed out those espousing views within their own community that align with the extremism now rife within settlement communities.
Second, they must unequivocally condemn violent rhetoric and actions against Palestinians. During the war against Hamas, for example, slogans like “no innocents in Gaza” and jokes mocking starving Palestinians ran rampant on social media from Israelis, including many Knesset members. Some were echoed by Israel’s supporters abroad. Pro-Israel groups must reject such rhetoric, as it applies to the West Bank as well as Gaza, immediately and forcefully.
Third, they must recognize Israel’s failure to subdue extremists and demand real accountability. They must demand investigations, prosecutions and punishments for violent settlers, insist that the Israeli government follow its own laws, and be prepared to impose consequences if those calls go unmet.
Claiming moral superiority while accepting extremism only reinforces distrust in Israeli narratives. Moreover, extremism of this flavor endangers the Jewish state itself by prolonging the conflict and degrading law and order.
This is not the behavior of a country committed to peace, justice and democracy — and the American public sees that. The absolutist narrative of total Israeli innocence is not only materially untrue but also entirely unconvincing.
Now is the time to pivot on the pro-Israel playbook and stand up for what we profess to care about. What Americans are looking for is not whether injustice takes place in Israel — but how the country and its supporters respond.
The post Israel’s reputation is in free fall. One radical change could help appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
With anti-Arab campaign ad, Netanyahu stoops to new moral and political lows
Israeli election campaigns have often been ugly. They have featured exaggeration, fearmongering and outright deception. But even by those standards, the first major campaign advertisement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, posted on Netanyahu’s X account on Tuesday, managed to shock much of the country.
The AI-generated video depicts former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, who has become the standard-bearer for the opposition, walking through a sunlit field toward a young Jewish man before passing him by to embrace Mansour Abbas of Ra’am, the United Arab List, instead.
The young man looks strikingly like Eisenkot’s son, Gal, who was killed fighting in Gaza in late 2023 — although Likud insists he isn’t meant to. Strictly speaking, there is enough difference to sustain the protestations. The young man has longer, wavier hair than Gal Eisenkot did — just enough, perhaps, to preserve plausible deniability. Yet almost everyone I know believed they were watching a father joyfully approaching his slain son, seemingly restored to life, only to ignore him in favor of an Arab political leader at a time when Arab political participation in Israel is particularly contentious.
The only possible explanation: Likud wants their campaign to be as mean as possible. Or perhaps that they believe that anything that creates a buzz — and therefore distracts from the governing coalition’s disastrous and controversial policies, including a wildly unpopular recent legislative blitz — is a good thing.
And buzz there is. The perception that a father’s personal loss had been weaponized for electoral gain struck many as a line that simply should not be crossed. “This is Netanyahu, and this is his machine of incitement”, wrote Einav Zangauker, whose son was held hostage in Gaza by Hamas, on social media. “This isn’t politics,” Zangauker added, but rather “an attack on a bereaved father and an assault on his dignity. It is the lowest of the low.”
“I turn to elected representatives, activists, and all candidates from all parties, and demand that you do not cross red lines. Do not turn rivals into enemies,” Israeli President Isaac Herzog said. “I call on the people of Israel, in a clear voice: Remember that elections are not a civil war.”
But even if one puts aside the controversy surrounding the young man altogether, the advertisement remains deeply troubling. It is, at its core, an exercise in incitement against Ra’am — and, by extension, against the very idea that Arab citizens may legitimately participate in governing Israel.
Abbas himself accused Netanyahu of “trying to incite between different parts of society”; about a fifth of Israelis are Arab, and the ad was obviously trying to delegitimize collaboration with the parties who generally represent them.
From Likud’s perspective, that too is logical — so long as they ignore the goal of Israel remaining a democratic country in which component ethnic groups live in harmony. It’s logical because Arab parties have always been part of the opposition to Likud and the chances are high that Eisenkot might need them, even passively, to successfully craft a coalition after the Oct. 27 election.
This isn’t just dangerous. It ignores the essential role that Arab parties have played in building toward a strong Israeli future.
Ra’am, under Abbas, has been the most integrationist Arab party Israel has ever seen. Abbas broke with decades of Arab political orthodoxy by arguing that Arab citizens should seek influence through practical cooperation with whichever Zionist government Israelis elected. He has repeatedly recognized Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people while demanding full equality for its Arab citizens.
Whatever one thinks of his politics, these choices have represented one of the boldest experiments in Jewish-Arab partnership since the state’s founding.
That experiment briefly succeeded. Ra’am joined Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid’s coalition in 2021 and demonstrated that Arab participation in government could become something ordinary rather than revolutionary.
More awkward still for Likud, Netanyahu himself spent some weeks after the 2021 election attempting to persuade Abbas to support — or even participate in — his own coalition. Those negotiations failed for one principal reason: Far-right firebrand Bezalel Smotrich — now Netanyahu’s finance minister — refused to countenance a government dependent on an Arab party. Without Ra’am, Netanyahu lacked a majority.
It is therefore surreal to portray Eisenkot’s willingness to work with Ra’am as somehow beyond the democratic pale, when not so long ago, Netanyahu himself tried to do precisely the same thing.
Nor should anyone pretend that Arab parties suddenly became relevant because of Eisenkot. Since the emergence of today’s political blocs, Arab parties have almost invariably belonged to the anti-Likud camp. Any center-left coalition aspiring to govern has depended, directly or indirectly, on their parliamentary support. That is not a distortion of Israeli democracy. It is one of its enduring structural realities.
Which brings us to the larger significance of this episode.
Many Israelis have long predicted that this Likud campaign would barely concern policy at all. They expected, instead, an effort to delegitimize any prospective change government by portraying it as illegitimate because it relied on Arab parties. They expected renewed attempts to cast Arab political participation as inherently suspect. They expected emotional manipulation to substitute for argument and personal attacks to eclipse serious debate. Some feared renewed efforts to discourage Arab turnout and disqualify Arab parties from the ballot.
That appears to be exactly what they’re getting.
The remarkable thing is not merely that Likud produced this advertisement, but that doing so was effectively its first act of the campaign, which kicked off after the Knesset recently went into recess.
Before voters had heard competing visions for Israel’s economy, security or diplomacy, the country’s governing party chose to launch its campaign by inflaming fears about Arab political participation while employing imagery that countless Israelis immediately interpreted as mocking one father’s unbearable personal loss.
By the next day, competing ads using a similar aesthetic were put out by opponents of Netanyahu. One depicted Netanyahu on a similar field running past a soldier to hug a Haredi politician holding a sign that says — as many Haredi anti-draft protesters chant — “we’d rather die than serve.”
One reason AI is so attractive to political strategists is because it blurs responsibility. Images can be carefully engineered to evoke a conclusion while remaining just different enough to deny that such a conclusion was ever the intention. The technology offers something every spin doctor craves: emotional impact coupled with plausible deniability.
“I do not think we can allow this to continue,” lamented David Lau, a former chief rabbi of Israel, who has served in the military. “We must stop all these disputes, all this talk, and all these behaviors. This path does not lead to building anything. It does not lead to peace. It is a bad path, and I am even more concerned about the next generation.”
It is entirely possible that this advertisement will prove to have established the moral tone of the campaign. Israel deserves better.
The post With anti-Arab campaign ad, Netanyahu stoops to new moral and political lows appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Reed College agrees to sweeping reforms as part of Title VI antisemitism settlement
(JTA) — Reed College has agreed to a host of far-reaching institutional changes, including asserting that targeting Jewish Zionists will be considered discriminatory, in order to settle multiple federal antisemitism investigations, parties to the complaint announced Wednesday.
The settlement was announced by the Anti-Defamation League and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which jointly filed the complaint, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination at any institution receiving federal funds. It comes as campuses across the country, facing threats of losing federal funding under the Trump administration, have demonstrated willingness to negotiate new antisemitism protections.
As part of the agreement, the private Portland, Oregon, liberal arts school says it will insert language into its discrimination policy asserting that “for many Jewish people, Zionism is integral to their religious, ancestral and/or ethnic Jewish identity,” and that “targeting Jews on the basis of their Zionist identity” will be considered discriminatory.
The school will also contract a third-party consultant to monitor and report on its effectiveness in adhering to antisemitism protections, role that is unusual in similar Title VI agreements. The agreement says Reed will “consider” the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s working definition of antisemitism, which includes some criticisms of Israel, and implement antisemitism training for faculty and staff.
“We take concerns about antisemitism, and all forms of unlawful discrimination, seriously, and we will continue to support the well-being, safety, and success of every member of our community,” a Reed College spokesperson told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a statement acknowledging the agreement. Reed declined to comment further.
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt and Brandeis Center officials praised the agreement in a release as a potential model for other colleges.
“We believe it should serve as a model for other schools,” Denise Katz-Prober, director of legal initiatives at the Brandeis Center, told JTA about the agreement. The required language in Reed’s discrimination guidelines, she said, is “very clear about what constitutes anti-Zionist conduct in violation of civil rights and in violation of the policy.”
“This outcome demonstrates how the Title VI process can work to effectively protect Jewish students,” Greenblatt said in his own statement.
Around 100 students at Reed College are Jewish, or about 7% of the total student body, according to estimates from Hillel International. A request for comment to the director of PDX Hillel, which serves Jewish students at Reed and others in the region, was not immediately returned.
The resolution stems from two anonymous Title VI antisemitism complaints from Jewish former Reed students, both filed in 2024 under the Biden administration. One of those cases related to a student whose dorm-room mezuzah was vandalized, and who herself was later pelted with rocks, during a pro-Palestinian demonstration in spring 2024. The student later left the school out of concern for her safety.
Both of the described acts would have already been considered violations of school policy for reasons unrelated to the student’s Jewish or Zionist identity. Brandeis’s Katz-Prober argued both should have also been considered in the context of her targeting by anti-Zionist activists.
“It might be difficult for someone to, at first glance, understand whether it was simply an assault or an assault motivated by bias,” she said. The case, she said, demonstrated how in some cases, “‘Zionist’ is merely a codeword for Jew.”
Katz-Prober also touted the agreement’s mandate that the school bring on a third-party compliance consultant, separate from its Title VI coordinator. While she insisted that such a role would be “independent” and free of bias, she noted that both the ADL and the Brandeis Center would have a role in their selection.
“Both sides get a say,” she said.
The post Reed College agrees to sweeping reforms as part of Title VI antisemitism settlement appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs cruises to GOP nomination for governor amid allegations of antisemitism
(JTA) — Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, who has drawn criticism for ties to white nationalist figures, will officially be the Republican nominee for Arizona governor, after winning the primary on Tuesday night.
Biggs, who is backed by President Donald Trump, has drawn criticism for encouraging Stew Peters, an internet personality, and appearing on his show. Peters has labeled Judaism a “death cult” and has called for a “final solution” that involves the deportation of American Jews, and multiple watchdogs identify him as promoting antisemitism.
“Keep preaching,” Biggs told Peters at the end of his June 2023 appearance on the show, during which they discussed government corruption and Biggs agreed with Peters that the FBI should be abolished.
Biggs, 67, who won handily with 73.4% of votes according to multiple media outlets, will challenge Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in what is expected to be a competitive race in November. Biggs has represented Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, which is outside of Phoenix, since 2017.
His opponent in the GOP primary, Rep. David Schweikert, had put out a campaign mailer in March tying Biggs to white supremacy and antisemitism. The mailer featured mentions of Biggs’ interview with Peters as well as Biggs’ endorsement of Texas GOP candidate Brandon Herrera, who owned a copy of “Mein Kampf.”
Biggs’ campaign did not respond to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s request for comment, but in a local TV interview last month he called the accusations politically motivated and said, “This notion that I am antisemitic is absolutely one of the most ludicrous, insane arguments ever.”
In 2024, Biggs opposed the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, which passed in the House of Representatives. Biggs wrote that he opposes antisemitism and that the “pro-Hamas, pro-genocide, anti-Israel events happening across the nation are sickening.” He rejected the legislation, he said, because it was “so poorly drafted that it violates the Constitution and could have serious ramifications for the Christian community.” Right wing Republicans objected especially to the bill citing a definition of antisemitism that included as an example the claim that the Jews killed Jesus.
That same year, Biggs attended a rally co-sponsored by the Proud Boys, an extremist militia style group. In 2019, he spoke at a “Patriotism over Socialism” rally in Arizona, which watchdogs warned would draw extremist groups.
Media Matters, a group that mostly monitors right-wing groups, in 2023 wrote that “the links between Biggs and far-right extremists have been well-documented,” citing among other things his ties to another far-right group, the Oath Keepers.
The Republican Jewish Coalition did not respond to a question over whether it would support Biggs’ run for governor.
At a campaign event on Tuesday, Hobbs skewered Biggs for his denial of Trump’s 2020 election loss, and for not acknowledging Hobbs’ narrow 2022 gubernatorial victory over Republican Kari Lake.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs cruises to GOP nomination for governor amid allegations of antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.

