Uncategorized
Jewish Democrats split over Trump’s Iran military strikes as Congress weighs war powers
The joint U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran, launched with a stealth strike early Saturday, has also prompted a political battle in Washington over waging war without authorization from Congress as required by the constitution.
President Donald Trump has offered mixed signals about the operation’s duration, suggesting that it could be prolonged but also floating a possible immediate return to negotiations with Tehran.
At least 10 Israelis and four U.S. servicemembers were killed in Iranian missile strikes over the weekend.
In recent weeks, as the likelihood of war loomed, Jewish Democrats on the Hill highlighted the need for congressional oversight and a formal vote before the U.S. deepens its role in a war with Tehran. Now, as Israeli civilians shelter under sirens and endure repeated missile strikes, the divide has sharpened between members of Congress with longstanding personal and political ties to Israel and those firmly opposed to expanding American involvement in another Middle East conflict.
The divide reflects wider tensions within the Democratic Party in the wake of the Gaza war that are likely to shape the midterm elections. Recent national polls show that Democratic voters as a group have become less sympathetic to the Jewish state. The latest Gallup annual survey found that only 17% of Democrats sympathize more with the Israelis in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while 65% say they are more aligned with the Palestinians. A new Reuters poll showed that 74% of Democrats disapprove of the attack on Iran, and 87% of them think Trump is willing “too much” to use military force to advance U.S. interests.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, called the joint US-Israeli mission an “illegal” and unjustified war that “will bring needless death and destruction.” Nadler is among 84 members who co-sponsored the bipartisan War Powers Resolution, introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, an open critic of Israel. The measure reasserts the 1973 war powers law, which would limit the president’s ability to deploy U.S. forces or declare war without congressional approval.
The House and the Senate could vote on such a measure this week, though the Republican leadership is opposed to it.
“Congress must do everything in our power to stop Trump from continuing his illegal war,” Nadler said in his statement on Saturday. ”I will vote to pass the resolution to bring an end to these illegal attacks, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.”
In contrast, Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Jared Moskowitz of Florida, two Democrats who have at times crossed party lines in support of Israel, have offered forceful support for action against the Iranian regime both before and after the strikes began.
But after previously declaring their opposition to congressional restrictions, Gottheimer is now urging the Trump administration to follow the war powers law, while Moskowitz is asking the president to follow the provision that requires briefing the full Congress within 48 hours of military action. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida echoed Moskowitz, saying that Trump should immediately consult and fully brief Congress before any further action is taken. “President Trump does not possess a blank check to act without consulting Congress or telling the American people what comes next,” she said.
Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois, the other co-chair of the Jewish Caucus, said he shifted his position in favor of the war powers resolution after Trump ordered the first wave of strikes in Iran and supported the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei without any engagement with Congress. Yet, like House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, he did not explicitly condemn the strikes.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan highlighted Trump’s lack of communication in a speech on Saturday. “He’s taken more military action in his first year than any president in our history,” Slotkin, a former CIA intelligence analyst who served three tours in Iraq, said.
“He’s really become a foreign policy president. He seems to like it and seems to sort of easily engage in it,” added Slotkin, a former Pentagon official who served in the Central Intelligence Agency. “I don’t think he’s interested in the views of many others beyond his maybe inner circle. But whether it’s Venezuela or Iran or the Caribbean, he has shown that he is quick to military action, quicker than most presidents we’ve seen in their first year.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a longtime critic of U.S. military action and Israeli policy, claimed that Israel and Saudi Arabia pressured the United States into attacking Iran. He added that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct in Gaza and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s authoritarian rule are at odds with their declared support for freedom in Iran.
What Jewish groups are saying
The divide was reflected in the statements from Democratic-aligned Jewish groups. The Jewish Democratic Council of America said the need to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions requires close coordination with Congress and said it backed the bipartisan measure to limit Trump’s executive powers. “We are gravely concerned about the safety and security of American troops, Israelis, and other civilians in the region, given the lack of a clearly articulated strategy from this White House about its military objectives and what comes next,” JDCA said in a statement.
Meanwhile, J Street, the self-described pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, said it was opposed to open-ended military action, claiming “Iran does not present an imminent threat that requires launching a ‘preventive’ war.”
Speaking at J Street’s annual conference in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland thanked the Jewish advocacy group for its stance on the war. “I would argue it’s not in the interest of the people of Israel or the region.” He added, “We should not be sending America into war for the political ambitions of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Saudi Crown Prince.”
The Democratic Majority for Israel called the action against Iran a “positive development.” It also urged the Trump administration to consult with Congress and outline a “credible plan” to prevent escalation and “clear criteria for success and drawdown.”
National Democrats on the war in Iran
Jewish Democratic leaders outside of Congress, including Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel — all considered possible presidential candidates in 2028 — also chimed in.
“Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict,” Pritzker posted on X.
Shapiro, whose staunch defense of Israel and criticism of the pro-Palestinian protests after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks made him a target of progressive backlash, criticized Trump for what he described as a lack of clear objectives and insufficient international backing for the mission.
Emanuel, who was White House chief of staff to former President Barack Obama, said Trump’s remarks that he would seek regime change were a declaration of war that required authorization. It’s a change of government and overthrowing a government,” he said on CNN. “This is not a limited military action.”
The post Jewish Democrats split over Trump’s Iran military strikes as Congress weighs war powers 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.

