Uncategorized
NY state officials want schools to say how they are teaching the Holocaust
This article was produced as part of JTA’s Teen Journalism Fellowship, a program that works with teens across the world to report on issues that impact their lives.
(JTA) — Sasha Bandler and Josh Davis feel lucky to have learned about the Holocaust directly from survivors, but this wasn’t part of any formal education. The high school seniors found the Holocaust lessons at their Long Island schools inadequate.
“We’ve learned very little about the Holocaust aside from a general outline of what occurred,” said Davis, a student at Great Neck South High School. “In AP World History, my class spent about two class periods discussing the events of the Holocaust.”
Great Neck South’s Holocaust education differs from that at Paul D. Schreiber High School in Port Washington, and yet students there still find it unsatisfactory.
“My high school included ‘Night’ by Elie Weisel in its freshman-year curriculum, which I believe is a great first step in changing its Holocaust education,” said Bandler, a student at Schreiber High. “But I think there’s a long way to go to make sure students leave high school with a complete understanding of the Holocaust.”
For teen Isaiah Steinberg, Holocaust education came in his upstate New York middle school. “We read ‘Surviving Hitler’ in sixth grade, and we brought a Holocaust survivor to our school to talk with us,” Steinberg said, referring to a young adult book based on the experiences of Holocaust survivor Jack Mandelbaum. But still, he said he’s learned more from YouTube’s “Infographics Show” than in a classroom, where “in 8th grade, we probably spent three days. In 11th grade [AP U.S. history], we spent maybe one class.”
Student stories like these highlight the shortcomings and inconsistencies of New York’s efforts to require Holocaust education. Coupled with rising antisemitism across the state, legislators in recent months have sought to strengthen Holocaust education in New York, one of 23 states that have a mandate to teach the Holocaust. In August, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a law requiring a state-sponsored survey to track how school districts teach the Holocaust. Legislators see this as the first step in combating antisemitism in the state, even if it does not change the current regulations on Holocaust education. Instead, it will act as a barometer for how well schools are following the laws in place, allowing the Education Department to guide them in the right direction.
“The ideal outcome of the survey is that we identify those schools that are failing to meaningfully instruct students on the history of the Holocaust, and that those schools work with the State Education Department on a corrective action plan that gets them on track as quickly as possible,” said State Sen. Anna Kaplan, a representative of northwest Nassau County and a sponsor for the new Holocaust education act.
Sixty percent of Millenial and Gen Z New Yorkers surveyed did not know that six million Jews were murdered, and 19% believed Jews caused the Holocaust—the highest in the nation, according to a 2020 Claims Conference survey.
“I think there are some glaring statistics out there where students can’t name any concentration camps, and people don’t know what Auschwitz is,” said Assemblywoman Nily Rozic, a representative of Northeast Queens and one of the act’s sponsors.
New York’s legislation continues a trend of the state being proactive in teaching the Holocaust to its students. Public schools have been required to teach about human rights violations, with “particular attention to the study of the inhumanity of the Holocaust,” since 1994. But the statistics from the Claims Conference survey demonstrated to Rozic and Kaplan that New York schools were not following this law. Rozic and Kaplan said a change to the legislation was necessary to ensure New York’s students graduate with meaningful knowledge of the Holocaust.
The surveys, developed and distributed by the Education Department, have already been sent out to every public school across New York. They ask superintendents to outline what Holocaust education looks like at the elementary, middle and high school levels, and what training their teachers have in Holocaust education. The survey does not ask about how the curriculum is taught, rather, it only asks the superintendents to verify that they are teaching about the Holocaust.
These surveys were due to the Education Department by Nov. 10, 2022. According to Rozic, the department’s review of the results is expected by the beginning of 2023, at which point it will recommend changes to school districts that are not providing satisfactory Holocaust education, which is loosely defined in preexisting legislation.
If schools do not respond, or their answers do not indicate that Holocaust instruction is provided at their district, the Education Department will take action, prescribing a corrective action plan.
Of the many potential action plans, the common thread is that more time must be spent in educating students on the Holocaust.
“I think schools should spend a little more time teaching the topic though,” said Marnie Ziporkin, a senior at Commack High School, “so that students can fully comprehend why this event was so impactful to the entire society and Jews especially.”
While the act does not provide for legal changes to curriculum or consequences for school districts whose Holocaust education is deemed unsatisfactory, Kaplan says it is a step in the right direction to providing proper Holocaust education to students across New York State.
“At the end of the day it comes down to us wanting to provide students with the education that is required by law,” said Kaplan.
—
The post NY state officials want schools to say how they are teaching the Holocaust appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.