Uncategorized
Nuance is crucial in fighting hate. That’s why I helped write an alternative definition of antisemitism.
(JTA) — My 95-year-old mother knows a thing or two about trauma. Not only because she is a survivor of Auschwitz but also because she is a psychologist.
“What worries me,” my mother says, “is that we Jews will succumb to our past trauma rather than rise above it.”
I share my mother’s concern.
Jewish Americans face the threats of escalating antisemitism and growing white nationalism at the same time that the Israeli government’s anti-democratic policies are eliciting increasingly harsh condemnation worldwide.
There is no inherent relationship between antisemitism and the outcry over Israeli policies. But when they occur together, they can trigger traumatic memories and confuse our thinking. This confusion can lead to a dangerous conflation of issues at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism.
Prime Minister Netanyahu exploits this confusion to deflect condemnation of his policies. He constructs a misleading equation, portraying severe criticism of Israel as not only a threat to the Jewish state but also to the Jewish people.
To demonize his political opponents, Netanyahu invokes the ultimate act of antisemitism, the Holocaust. He did so when he blasted those negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and when he reprimanded The New York Times over its criticism of the agreements he reached with far-right political parties. His strategy is to downplay antisemitism on the right and emphatically equate left-wing with right-wing antisemitism to obscure their distinctions.
Some Jewish organizations, perceiving strong criticism of Israel as threatening Jewish unity and the Jewish state, reflexively reinforce that equation. A case in point is Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt’s approach to anti-Zionism.
Greenblatt used his keynote address at ADL’s annual leadership summit in May to hammer home his assertion that “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Full stop.” Over the past two weeks, he has played a leading role in the campaign to endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance non legally binding working definition of antisemitism (IHRA) as the sole such definition in the Biden administration’s U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. In a tweet urging its adoption, Greenblatt proclaimed: “Anything else permits antisemitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.”
Greenblatt was worried about reports that the White House would include other definitions in the strategy, such as the Nexus Document, which addresses “the complexities at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism.” Greenblatt has repeatedly denigrated Nexus by calling it a “pasted-up process organized by activists” and circulating inaccuracies like: “The Nexus definition assumes that unless there is outright violence involved, anti-Zionism is generally not antisemitism.”
In fact, the Nexus Document includes seven examples of anti-Zionist or anti-Israel behavior that should be considered antisemitic and four that might not be. As Dov Waxman, a member of the Nexus Task Force and chair of Israel Studies at UCLA, tweeted: “Nexus clearly identifies when criticism of Israel or opposition to it crosses the line into antisemitism. But because it is clearer than IHRA in this respect, it is less susceptible to being misused and weaponized against Palestinians and their supporters.”
It’s not that Greenblatt doesn’t understand the complexity of these issues. He has taken nuanced and moderate positions on anti-Zionism in the past. But complex formulas impede the use of simplistic equations. If Greenblatt wants to show that anti-Zionism is always an existential threat to both the Jewish state and the Jewish people, he can leave no room for nuance.
Ultimately, the White House acknowledged the significance of utilizing a varied set of resources to combat antisemitism, stating, “There are several definitions of antisemitism, which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism.” The strategy acknowledged that the United States had already “embraced” the IHRA version, describing it as the “most prominent,” and went on to say that it “welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document” and other efforts.
That formula has angered some supporters of the IHRA definition, including World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder, who said: “The inclusion of a secondary definition in addition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism is an unnecessary distraction from the real work that needs to be done.”
Like Greenblatt, Lauder wants to build a consensus around a simple explanation for a complex situation. But their approach actually diminishes our ability to carry out “the real work that needs to be done” because it weakens our ability to confront the dominant force fueling increased antisemitism in America: white supremacy
According to the ADL, white supremacy is the greatest danger facing Jewish Americans. As President Biden said in his opening remarks when the National Strategy was unveiled: “Our intelligence agencies have determined that domestic terrorism rooted in white supremacy — including antisemitism — is the greatest terrorist threat to our Homeland today.”
“We can’t take on white supremacy, xenophobia, anti-LGBTQ hate, or any form of hate without taking on the antisemitism that helps animate it,” says Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and former head of Integrity First for America, which successfully sued the neo-Nazis who organized the deadly 2017 Charlottesville march. “And likewise, we can’t take on antisemitism without taking on white supremacy or these other forms of hate … All our fates are intertwined.”
But Israel’s policies create a dilemma. When many of our potential allies see Israel, they see a country that calls itself a democracy but enacts laws enshrining Jewish dominance over Palestinian citizens of Israel. And they see a country that has denied fundamental human rights to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza for 56 years. So, not surprisingly, they are moved to speak out about these realities.
Criticism of Israel will inevitably heighten in response to the policies and actions of this Israeli government. Some of Israel’s critics may indeed cross a line by using antisemitic tropes or stereotypes or denying Jews the same rights afforded to others, including Palestinians. When they do, they should not get a free pass. Full stop.
But we must resist the temptation to reflexively respond with accusations of Jew-hatred, even when the criticism of Israel is off-base or unjustified. We cannot afford to oversimplify complex issues by conflating political disagreements about Israel with antisemitism. If we do, we risk distracting from addressing the most dangerous instances of antisemitism and bigotry.
Times like these call on us to shed the weight of our past and approach these issues with clear minds and thoughtful consideration. “Sometimes we split the world into good and bad to guard ourselves against difficult realities,” my mother said. “If we can rid ourselves of the bad and make it so the other side is always guilty, then we feel safe. But by doing so, we lose the ability to find a solution.”
—
The post Nuance is crucial in fighting hate. That’s why I helped write an alternative definition of antisemitism. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. Some Israelis and Jews say he should get it.
For anyone who has been living in a state of suspended animation since the Oct. 7 attack when Hamas took hundreds of hostages from Israel, the timing of the announcement on Wednesday that a deal had been reached for their release at the two-year mark could not have been more resonant.
But the timing has another significance: It comes on the eve of this year’s announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize — a sought-after award for the man who demanded and brokered the deal, U.S. President Donald Trump.
Trump has previously expressed resentment that the Nobel committee had not honored him. Since returning to office this year, he has claimed — with some evidence — to have helped end seven world conflicts. And on Wednesday, he announced that he had achieved the biggest deal of them all, a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war that he says could pave the way for lasting peace in the Middle East.
Those grateful for the deal say he deserves the honor.
“I call on the Nobel committee to award President Trump the Nobel Peace Prize. He did something unbelievable,” Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said in a video statement on Thursday.
“President Trump shouldn’t just win the Nobel Prize — it should be renamed after him,” said the Republican Jewish Coalition in a statement.
And in Israel, a farmer who has used his land to send political messages in the past had the words “Nobel 4 Trump” plowed into his fields.
Trump is clearly eager for the prize. Soon after he announced the deal, the White House tweeted a picture of him with the words “The Peace President” in all-caps. Trump’s son Eric tweeted, “Retweet if you believe @realDonaldTrump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize,” quickly drawing tens of thousands of retweets. And his Jewish commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, added his own take: “Undoubtedly, President Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Not everyone who is happy to see a deal says Trump deserves the prize. “Trump gets what he wants because he is a bully. Period. And apparently, bullying was what was necessary to get this ceasefire done,” wrote Elana Sztokman, an Israeli liberal voice, on her Substack.
It appears unlikely that Trump could get the prize this year. Nominations, which can only come from specific people empowered to suggest recipients, were required to be made by Jan. 31, and the committee said it made its choice in Monday, before the deal.
The prize, awarded most years since 1901, is intended to recognize those “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The Nobel committee, which consists of five Norwegians, is famously resistant to pressure campaigns, and some of its members have spoken out against the kinds of anti-democratic policies that Trump is advancing at home.
Still, the committee’s chair Jorgen Watne Frydnes indicated this week — without mentioning Trump specifically — that the committee saw efforts to vie for the prize as a positive.
“We feel that the world is listening, and the world is discussing, and discussing how we can achieve peace is a good thing,” he told the BBC during a rare interview about the process.
At least two people did nominate Trump before the deadline, including an Israeli professor of law at Case Western Reserve University who said she did so in January after a brief ceasefire that resulted in the return of some but not all of the Israeli hostages in Gaza.
“Their return was an act of justice and humanity, and President Trump played a decisive role in achieving it,” Anat Alon-Beck told the Times of Israel on Thursday. “What distinguishes President Trump is his ability to deliver meaningful results through determined leadership. Under his guidance, a historic ceasefire agreement was reached, bringing home hostages whose lives were hanging by a thread.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nominated Trump in July, after the deadline, amid ceasefire talks that did not yield a deal. “It’s well deserved, and you should get it,” Netanyahu told Trump at the White House when presenting the letter, which did not mention Gaza.
Past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize include Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama and South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, as well as two Israeli prime ministers who struck peace agreements and their Arab counterparts. One agreement — for Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, has held — while the other, in 1994 for Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres as well as the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Yassir Arafat, soon collapsed amid unprecedented violence.
Some human rights advocates say even if Trump is unlikely to take home his white whale this year, there’s a chance that he could in the future if the Gaza deal is in fact inked and holds. Nina Graeger, the director of the think tank PRIO, told the BBC, “I think it would be difficult not to look in his direction then,”
—
The post Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. Some Israelis and Jews say he should get it. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Mamdani’s Oct. 7 statement draws Israeli rebuke, as anniversary bares divides among NYC mayoral candidates
In New York City, the second anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel fell against the backdrop of a mayoral election that brought Israel and Gaza to the fore of local politics.
Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee and frontrunner, attended a vigil hosted by Israelis for Peace in Union Square on the anniversary of the attack. The anti-occupation activists have rallied weekly for two years to demand a ceasefire, the release of hostages and an end to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian advocacy and staunch criticism of Israel are central to his swift ascent in politics, and his opponents in the race have latched onto his views, accusing him of fanning antisemitism at a time when anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise.
Now, the race enters its final stretch as a tentative peace dawns on the Middle East, with President Donald Trump announcing that Israel and Hamas agreed to a hostage deal and an initial phase to end the two-year war on Wednesday night.
Mamdani attended the Tuesday vigil with Brad Lander, the city comptroller and a close Jewish ally, and held a lit candle while listening to Israeli and Palestinian speakers, as well as local rabbis. One of the speakers, Tamar Glazerman — whose aunt was killed by Hamas on Oct. 7 — decried Israel’s retaliation in Gaza, saying, “War crimes cannot justify other war crimes.” A banner behind her read, “Stop the Genocide. Save Gaza. Free All Hostages.”
These sentiments echoed a statement that Mamdani released to mark the anniversary. “Two years ago today, Hamas carried out a horrific war crime, killing more than 1,100 Israelis and kidnapping 250 more,” he said. He called for the return of the remaining hostages and said he mourned the dead.
He went on to say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government “launched a genocidal war,” killing more than 67,000 Palestinians and reducing swaths of Gaza to rubble. He criticized the U.S. government for being “complicit” and reiterated his long-held view that “the occupation and apartheid must end.”
The statement gathered over 20 million views on X and rebukes from many, including the Israeli government, who said he was wrong to focus on Gaza on a day anchored in Israeli tragedy.
“Two years after Hamas launched its barbaric massacre against Israel and the Jewish people, Mamdani has chosen to act as a mouthpiece for Hamas propaganda — spreading Hamas’s fake genocide campaign,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry said, adding that Mamdani “normalizes antisemitism” and “stands with Jews only when they are dead.”
Mamdani also drew criticism from Jews who said he only paid lip service to their mourning. Zachary Braiterman, a professor of modern Judaism at Syracuse University who supports the Israeli movement to end the war, said Mamdani “speaks quickly past NYC Jews as we stop and mark the 2 year anniversary of 10/7.”
Other critiques came from pro-Palestinian activists who said his statement undermined their cause. Nerdeen Kiswani, founder of the group Within Our Lifetime, accused Mamdani of erasing “the decades of siege, occupation, and systematic killing that led to that day.”
The double-sided critique drew the attention of Adam Carlson, head of the polling firm Zenith Research. “The fact that everyone on both extremes is up in arms over this statement means that he absolutely nailed it,” tweeted Carlson.
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s closest competitor, focused his own comment on the Hamas attack and did not mention Israel’s retaliation or the fate of Palestinians.
“To the Jewish people — I stand with you. I mourn with you and I will forever be by your side in the fight against evil and anti-semitism in all forms,” said Cuomo, who lost to Mamdani in the Democratic primary and relaunched his campaign as an independent.
Cuomo has centered an appeal to Jewish New Yorkers in his bid for mayor, touting his pro-Israel record as governor. He recently collected a slew of endorsements from Jewish groups and leaders, largely representing Orthodox communities, after incumbent Mayor Eric Adams dropped out and the field narrowed to Cuomo, Mamdani and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa.
Jewish voters are divided over this election, with many younger, more progressive Jews backing Mamdani and many aligning with his views on Israel and Gaza. A recent Marist poll conducted before Adams quit found the same proportion of Jewish voters — 35% — breaking for both Cuomo and Mamdani.
Sliwa said that Oct. 7 was “a dark day” and called for the release of hostages. He also acknowledged the ensuing devastation without explicitly naming Palestinians in Gaza.
“The death and destruction that has followed in the region is deeply disheartening, and my prayers are with all families here in New York and abroad who continue to feel this pain,” he said.
The mayoral race coincides with a dramatic shift in how New Yorkers view Israel. According to a New York Times/Siena poll last month, 44% of New Yorkers said they had greater sympathy for Palestinians, compared with 26% who sympathized more with Israel. Voters also preferred Mamdani’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — once viewed as a fringe left stance in the city’s political landscape — over the other candidates’ by a wide margin.
—
The post Mamdani’s Oct. 7 statement draws Israeli rebuke, as anniversary bares divides among NYC mayoral candidates appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
In Good Faith: A Jewish/Muslim Night of Comedy and Conversation
Date and time: Wed, Oct 22, 2025 / 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM EDT
Location: Youngplace, 180 Shaw Street, Toronto, ON, M6J 2W5
In a post-Oct. 7 world, news feeds are filled with videos, podcasts and reports of Jews and Muslims talking at each other, about each other—but rarely with each other. This limited series brings together Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians, from across the country and the political divide, to sit down and have difficult conversations—in good faith.
In this live podcast recording, we’re bringing comedy sets from Adrienne Fish, Nour Hadidi, Foad HP and Dan Rosen before a panel discussion with all four about what it’s like performing as Muslim and Jewish comics in 2025—including all the pitfalls they have to navigate as they speak their minds onstage.
Included: Entrance to Koffler Arts and post-event reception.
Parking: Free and paid options available, but spots are limited.
All proceeds will go to charity
Hosted by The Canadian Jewish News, in partnership with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and the Ronald S. Roadburg Foundation.
The post In Good Faith: A Jewish/Muslim Night of Comedy and Conversation appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.