Uncategorized
Judaism’s Conservative movement apologizes for decades of discouraging intermarriage, signals new approach
(JTA) — The Conservative movement, one of the major Jewish denominations, is formally apologizing for decades of discouraging intermarriage and committing itself to a new approach centered on engagement.
The shift marks a significant change in tone for a movement that long treated intermarriage as a threat to Jewish continuity, even as its longstanding ban on clergy officiating at such weddings remains in place.
Leaders of the movement announced the shift in a report released Thursday by a working group representing the denomination’s three main arms: the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly and the Cantors Assembly.
“For decades, our movement’s approach to families where one partner is Jewish and the other is not was rooted in disapproval and shaped by fears about Jewish continuity,” the leaders wrote in a statement accompanying the report. “But today — as we connect with countless families who want to learn, participate, and belong — we are committed to welcoming people as they are.”
In the report, the movement also accepted responsibility for the consequences of that approach.
“We acknowledge that our movement’s historical stance has resulted in hurt, alienation, and disconnection from our community. We deeply apologize,” the report said.
The report does not itself change binding policy. Instead, it asks the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, or CJLS, to revisit how its rules are interpreted, while recommending new educational, pastoral and ritual approaches aimed at intermarried families.
“The idea that we could discourage people from intermarrying through disapproval — all that did was push people away who really should have been part of our communities,” Rabbi Jacob Blumenthal, the CEO of both the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said in an interview.
The Conservative movement’s formal ban on officiating at interfaith weddings dates to a 1973 “standard of practice” adopted by the Rabbinical Assembly, which also barred clergy from speaking during such ceremonies. While the rule remains in effect, the report argues that it effectively froze conversation for decades even as intermarriage became widespread across American Jewish life.
“What we stated in 1973 obviously did not deter intermarriage. So moving forward, how do we really embrace these individuals” who are part of intermarried families? asked Shirley Davidoff, a member of the working group and vice president of USCJ’s board.
The ban has long been framed by the movement as a matter of Jewish law, or halacha, which traditionally understands marriage as a covenant between two Jews. While the Conservative movement has historically embraced the idea that halacha evolves over time, leaders have argued that officiating at interfaith weddings raises complex legal and ritual questions that go beyond concerns about continuity.
The report contends, however, that halacha itself contains “expansive, creative” resources for welcoming interfaith families.
“We believe that our halakhic process already contains the necessary ingredients to address the needs of our constituents,” the report said.
The report is the culmination of a nearly two-year process that included responses to a questionnaire from 1,200 people, listening sessions, focus groups and commissioned papers from scholars and rabbis. The 17-member working group included clergy and lay leaders from North America and Israel and operated by consensus rather than formal votes.
The new report builds on a 2024 clergy-led review that maintained the officiation ban but called for greater engagement with interfaith families, expanding that work into a movement-wide process that included lay leaders and focused on repairing trust and widening pathways into Jewish life.
In its section on marriage rituals, the report explicitly notes that there was not unanimity among members, a signal of persistent internal disagreement, particularly over whether and how Conservative clergy should participate in weddings between Jews and non-Jews.
The working group stops short of recommending an immediate end to the officiation ban. Instead, it asks the CJLS to clarify ambiguous terms such as “officiation” and “wedding,” and to consider whether rabbis might offer blessings or other forms of participation before or after a wedding ceremony.
The report arrives amid a broader rethinking of intermarriage in some corners of American Judaism. Reform and Reconstructionist movements have long permitted officiation, and individual Conservative congregations have increasingly tested the boundaries — including a high-profile case last year in Minnesota, where a Conservative synagogue announced it would allow clergy participation short of officiation. In a separate case, a rabbi left the movement rather than face possible expulsion following a complaint to his rabbinical association over his officiation at interfaith weddings.
Blumenthal declined to comment on any internal disciplinary reviews, emphasizing that the report is about setting direction, not enforcing compliance.
“What we hope,” he said, “is that rabbis and congregations will think more deeply about what it means to truly engage people who want to build Jewish lives.”
Rabbi Dan Horwitz of Congregation Beth Yeshurun in Houston is among those opposing a more permissive policy, warning that attitudes in the United States are generally less traditional than elsewhere in the movement.
“Given what I know about the Rabbinical Assembly as a whole, a change in policy would rupture the assembly — particularly among older members and those living in Israel or Latin America,” said Horwitz, who was not involved in the working group and did not have a chance to review its report prior to publication.
But Keren McGinity, who served as director of intermarriage engagement and inclusion at USCJ until her position was eliminated earlier this year, said fears of mass defection have long been overstated.
“I have heard the concern about the fracturing of the movement for years,” McGinity said. “It’s not that no one would leave, but generally speaking, when people make that threat, it’s often hyperbolic.”
While acknowledging deep divisions within the movement, McGinity said she was not convinced that lifting restrictions would fracture Conservative Judaism. Avoiding change, she added, also carries risks, pointing to the 2020 Pew study showing that fewer than half of Jews raised Conservative still identify with the movement. “That,” she said, “is hugely concerning.”
Despite inevitable disagreements over policy and pace, members of the working group said they hope the report itself will be seen as a sign of institutional seriousness and as a unifying moment for the movement.
“I hope people will feel proud that we’re having this conversation,” Davidoff said. “That we’re willing to pull back layers, listen carefully, and include people that want to build a Jewish home.”
The post Judaism’s Conservative movement apologizes for decades of discouraging intermarriage, signals new approach appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel Votes in Favor of Iran Joining International Cheer Union: ‘The Iranian People Are Not Enemies’
Ludmila Yasinska, far right, posing with members of the Israeli Cheer Union competing at the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships in Orlando, Florida. Photo: Provided
Israel’s representative at the International Cheer Union (ICU) General Meeting in Orlando, Florida, this week voted in favor of Iran becoming a member nation of the organization.
Ludmila Yasinska, president of the Israeli Cheer Union, attended the annual meeting in-person and voted for Iran joining the ICU, the official world governing body for cheerleading.
The decision was approved, and a total of five applicant countries have newly joined the organization: Iran, Sint Maarten, Iceland, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. The ICU now has 126 national federation members across all continents, and each receives one vote for all General Meeting voting processes.
“The vote in favor of Iran’s participation in international competitions expresses a clear distinction between the Iranian people and the terrorist regime,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “It is a values-based position that sees the Iranian people not as enemies, but as human beings who seek to take part in the international arena, to compete, and to be partners in an open and fair world. It is also a statement of hope — that despite the complex reality, there is room to distinguish between citizens and leadership, and to extend a hand toward a different future.”
“May the day come when we can stand side by side and cheer together,” she added.
According to experts, the vast majority of the Iranian people oppose the authoritarian, Islamist regime that has ruled the country since 1979. In January, the regime’s security forces killed and imprisoned tens of thousands of civilians to crush anti-government protests that erupted across Iran.
The ICU General Meeting took place before the start of the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships. This year, Israel competed in the international competition for the first time ever. The championships started on Wednesday and concluded on Friday.
“It was an amazing feeling and a great source of pride to represent Israel on the world stage,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “Despite all the difficult times and the situation in Israel before the championship, we never stopped believing or working toward this moment.”
The competition occurred amid a ceasefire pausing the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, whose leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction. Before the temporary truce went into effect, Israelis spent weeks running to bomb shelters as the Iranian regime launched barrages of ballistic missiles at the Jewish state. Iran’s chief terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, also fired rockets at northern Israel from Lebanon.
“There were times when we had to train on Zoom because we could not leave our homes. We also had one intensive week where some of our girls from the north stayed in our homes, just so we could have the opportunity to train together as one team,” Yasinska explained. “After all of this hard preparation, sacrifice, and determination, to finally represent our country was incredibly emotional and meaningful. It is a huge honor for us, and it was very important to show the world that Israel is on the international map of this sport — standing strong, competing proudly, and doing the very best we can.”
In 2021, the ICU was granted full recognition by the International Olympic Committee.
Uncategorized
London Gallery Cancels Antisemitic Art Exhibit After Pro-Israel Lawyers Intervene
Demonstrators attend the “Lift The Ban” rally organised by Defend Our Juries, challenging the British government’s proscription of “Palestine Action” under anti-terrorism laws, in Parliament Square, in London, Britain, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
A gallery in southwest London has canceled a traveling art exhibition that it was set to host next month after a group of pro-Israel lawyers expressed concern about the show’s artwork promoting antisemitic content, including conspiracy theories about Jews and images that demonize Israeli and Jewish individuals.
“Drawings Against Genocide” by British artist Matthew Collings was set to be open at the Delta House Gallery in Wandsworth from May 16-24. The gallery is owned by Pineapple Corporation and Delta House Studios Ltd. After UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), an association of British lawyers who support the Jewish state, wrote a letter to the gallery’s owners about the exhibit’s antisemitic content, they canceled the event.
“We were unaware of this intention for an exhibition as it was arranged without any consultation with the owners of the artist studios at Riverside Road,” Pineapple Corporation Chairman Tom Berglund wrote in a letter to UKLFI on Friday that confirmed the exhibit has been called off. “We all hope the issues on the ground in the Middle East can eventually be resolved,” he added.
Last month, “Drawings Against Genocide” was displayed at a gallery in Margate, a seaside town in England, and garnered widespread criticism for promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives and imagery.
A spokesperson for UKLFI said freedom of expression “does not extend to the promotion of material that relies on antisemitic tropes, dehumanizing imagery, and conspiracy narratives about Jews.”
“There is a real danger in normalizing antisemitic imagery and narratives in cultural spaces,” the spokesperson added. “When material that demonizes Jews or recycles classic antisemitic tropes is presented as legitimate artistic expression, it risks lowering the threshold for what is considered acceptable in public discourse. At a time when Jewish communities in London and across the UK are already facing a significant rise in antisemitic incidents and attacks, it is particularly important that institutions act responsibly. The wider environment in which hatred is trivialized or excused can contribute to a climate in which such attacks become more likely.”
Collings’ drawings feature swastikas, often alongside the flag of Israel, show Jews surrounded by skulls, depict ancient Israelites with horns, and compare Israel to Nazi Germany. One drawing shows Sotheby’s French-Israeli owner Patrick Drahi as a “fanatic Zionist” who eats babies alive. Others demonized in Collings’ work include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pro-Israel writer and journalist David Collier, and film director Quentin Tarantino, who resides in Israel with his family.
Some drawings also address the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel. One artwork denies that sexual violence took place during the massacre while another falsely claims there is “no reliable evidence whatsoever” about some of the violence orchestrated by the Hamas terrorist organization.
UKLFI told the gallery’s owners that Collings’ artwork could “potentially engage provisions under the Public Order Act 1986 and expose both the artist and the gallery to legal risks.”
Collings insists that his artwork is criticism of Israel and Zionism, but not antisemitic. He wrote in an Instagram post that his drawings “are a window into the Zionist lobby’s connection to our government, mainstream media, and the art world. The images depict individuals implicated in the genocide in Gaza as well as challenge the notion that being against Zionism is antisemitic.” He said in a separate post that his art exhibit “fights against the atrocities Israel is committing” and will “go on touring until Palestine is free.”
“Venues around the world are lined up to host it. Sold works are replaced by new ones,” he added. “Ongoing realities are pictured. A real bloody genocide is the subject. And be damned to unreal absurdities uttered by Zionist defenders of the indefensible.”
Uncategorized
Shabbos Kestenbaum: Administrators Have a Duty to Protect Jewish Students and Continue to Fail
The campus of Smith College in April 2024. Photo: Instagram/Screenshot
Across the country, we’re watching the same play staged, with the same script. Earlier this month, students at Ohio University passed a BDS referendum. Last week, a different BDS referendum passed at UC Berkeley. At Smith College, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility considered a BDS proposal on April 16 and then went silent on its timeline. On April 22, at San Diego State, the student government held its final vote and passed a BDS resolution.
Four campuses, four tests, and the question for every administrator is the same: Will you stand up now, or will you do what Harvard did and let the crisis metastasize? I know the answer when administrators fail.
As a former Harvard student, I watched an institution ignore more than 40 written appeals to its antisemitism task force. I filed a federal Title VI lawsuit as a last resort. A federal judge rejected Harvard’s motion to dismiss. Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in January 2025 as part of a related settlement, and my case settled four months later. But none of that had to happen. If Harvard had rejected the ideological premises of the BDS movement clearly and early, rather than treating them as legitimate academic discourse, the crisis that engulfed its campus might have been contained.
The four campuses now facing BDS votes should learn from Harvard’s failure, not repeat it.
Ohio University represents the worst kind of response: the response that isn’t. When a BDS referendum passed on campus, the university’s only pushback came through Senior Director of Communications Dan Pittman, who told Jewish outlets that the university “will neither consider, nor act upon, any resolution or referendum that proposes illegal actions.” The statement was never posted on the university’s official channels. The president’s office has said nothing publicly. A quiet quote buried in the Jewish press is not a condemnation. It is a hope that the story will disappear. American Jewish students at Ohio University deserve a public, forceful, unambiguous rejection from President Lori Stewart Gonzalez, delivered on university letterhead and posted to the university’s own website.
UC Berkeley now faces the same test. On April 18, the student government’s referendum passed, yet Chancellor Rich Lyons has not publicly rejected the result. Berkeley has already lived through the consequences of administrative hesitation. In March 2026, Berkeley Law paid $1 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit after its “Jewish-free zones” and harassment of American Jewish students became national news. The university has been sued once for antisemitism. It should not need to be sued twice before its chancellor states plainly that the endowment will not be conscripted as a political weapon.
Smith College has an easier task and has somehow found a way to fail at it. In March 2024, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility rejected an earlier BDS proposal, finding Smith’s exposure to the targeted companies “negligible and entirely indirect.” On April 16, the committee considered a second, nearly identical proposal. Smith spokesperson Deb McDaniel stated that she “was not aware” of any formal timeline for the board to vote on the matter. That is the institutional equivalent of closing the blinds. Smith does not need a new study, a new committee, or a summer recess before delivering the same answer it delivered last year. The trustees should reaffirm the 2024 decision on the merits, in public, before the next academic year begins. Every week of silence is a week in which American Jewish students at Smith spend wondering whether their college has quietly switched sides.
This week, San Diego State University passed its BDS resolution, and the administration must clearly demonstrate that no divestment demand will be acted upon. President Adela de la Torre should not wait for the student government to humiliate itself on camera before defending the university’s fiduciary duty. American Jewish students at SDSU are entitled to know where their president stands, and they are entitled to know it in public, in writing, and this week.
These four cases share a single feature: Administrators who know the right answer and are hoping someone else will deliver it for them. Brown’s Corporation rejected divestment in October 2024. Bowdoin rejected it in March 2025. Dartmouth’s committee rejected it nine to zero. Columbia’s president said the university “will not divest from Israel.” Every institution that has engaged the question seriously has reached the same conclusion. The problem is not that the case against BDS is weak. The problem is that too many administrators would rather be quietly correct than publicly brave.
Quiet is not an option anymore. A 2026 study found that 42 percent of American Jewish students have experienced antisemitism on campus, and 34 percent hide their Jewish identity out of fear. These numbers are not abstractions. They are the direct product of administrative timidity in the face of a movement whose explicit goal is the delegitimization of the Jewish state and the isolation of American Jewish students on American campuses.
On Oct. 7, 2023, young American Jews woke up. We are not going back to sleep. We are watching Ohio University, UC Berkeley, Smith College, and San Diego State. We expect administrators who were hired to protect students to do their job.
Shabbos Kestenbaum is a political commentator at PragerU and a former lead plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against Harvard University.