Uncategorized
Should we be comparing ICE agents to Hitler’s ‘Brownshirts?’
In February of 1933, less than a month after Hitler became chancellor, Hermann Göring ordered the creation of a new 50,000-man “auxiliary police” force to combat what he called “organizations hostile to the state.” He built it by deputizing the Nazi Party’s most violent formation — the storm troopers, or Brownshirts — effectively turning a partisan militia into a state security arm.
Using similar framing, Donald Trump has declared that America’s greatest threat is “the enemy from within,” and he has found his own instrument to root them out: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with its partner agency, Customs and Border Protection.
In his second term, Trump has borrowed so many pages from the authoritarian playbook that it’s difficult to keep count. He has moved to purge civil servants who are not loyal to him, ban books, target political opponents, muzzle the press, rewrite history, and use extortion against institutions — universities, law firms, nonprofits — that he believes stand in his way.
Add to the list Trump’s transformation of ICE and CBP into something resembling an American version of the Brownshirts. The pattern is visible nationwide, but nowhere more starkly than in Minneapolis, where ICE operations have already produced a body count: two defenders of immigrants’ rights shot dead on the street.
Last fall, speaking to America’s top military brass, Trump warned that he might have to deploy the armed forces to Democratic-led cities to eliminate the so-called “enemy” by which he meant Americans protesting his immigration crackdown. That battle has already begun. It is not the military carrying it out, but federal immigration officers acting as soldiers, persecuting and attacking Americans who dare to stand against Trump’s authoritarian project.
To be sure, the Brownshirts and America’s immigration enforcement agencies have origins and histories that are completely dissimilar. ICE and CBP were created within a democratic system, staffed by career civil servants, and bound — at least in principle — by constitutional limits and judicial oversight. They were never conceived as a party militia, never designed to enforce ideological conformity, and never meant to serve as the armed wing of a political movement.
The Brownshirts, on the other hand, were explicitly created as a paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party — a street fighting militia whose purpose was to intimidate opponents, terrorize minorities, silence dissent, and make democratic life impossible through orchestrated violence. Hitler and the Brownshirts were linked from the beginning. When Hitler launched his failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich on Nov. 8, 1923, he was supported by hundreds of armed storm troopers, who terrorized the city.
Starting with just 800 members in Munich, the SA expanded rapidly during the Great Depression and after Hitler’s rise to power — totaling nearly 3 million in early 1934. Their presence on the streets — marching, beating, threatening, killing — helped convince millions of Germans that the Weimar Republic was collapsing and that only the Nazis could restore order. Once Hitler took power, the SA’s role only intensified; they ran makeshift detention and torture centers, carried out mass arrests, and terrorized Jews, leftists, and anyone deemed “un-German,” all while enjoying political protection from the new regime.
Nine decades later, videos of violence on American streets posted each day on social media evoke the terror and intimidation carried out by the Brownshirts.
In Hitler’s Germany, storm troopers assaulted Jews, trade unionists, socialists, Communists, and others deemed by the Nazi leader to be enemies of the state. In Trump’s America, federal immigration agents have imprisoned innocent foreigners and attacked American citizens who have mobilized to defend immigrants’ constitutional rights.
The tipping point was the Minneapolis shooting of Alex Pretti, the ICU nurse who stepped in to help a protester confronted by federal immigration agents. Multiple bystander videos captured federal officers wrestling Pretti to the pavement, striking him, then firing several shots at him at close range. Federal authorities later claimed Pretti had approached them with a gun, but the videos — clear, close, and filmed from multiple angles — showed that assertion to be false.
Just a few days earlier, allegations arose that ICE had used a 5-year-old Minneapolis-area boy as bait to lure his Ecuador-born father out of the family home. Both the boy and the father were taken into detention.
As immigration officers have carried out Trump’s massive immigration crackdown, there have been many confrontations between federal officials and protesters, and with public officials who have gone to immigration courts to make sure immigrants’ rights aren’t violated. But Trump turned Minneapolis into something resembling a battle zone by unleashing a surge of federal immigration agents whose tactics blurred the line between policing and political repression.
Efforts to blame Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good — shot dead in her car by an ICE agent in Minneapolis 17 days before Pretti was gunned down — for their own deaths have backfired spectacularly. Statements made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, were part of an effort to provide cover for the federal agents on the scene — as was the administration’s decision to shut out state and local law enforcement from any investigation. Covering up for the misdeeds of security forces was a hallmark of the Nazi state.
The outrage over what’s been happening in Minneapolis is so great that even some Republicans have said that ICE and CBP have gone too far. The Republican candidate for Minnesota governor, Chris Madel, pulled out of the race, calling ICE’s Operation Metro Surge “an unmitigated disaster” and denouncing the GOP’s “retribution on the citizens of our state.” Other Republicans have voiced similar dismay.
Trump is scrambling to contain the political damage. He has removed Gregory Bovino as commander of Operation Metro Surge and distanced himself from the derogatory and untrue statements made by Miller and Noem.
Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he plans to “de-escalate a little bit” in Minneapolis, while at the same time asserting that the surge of immigration officers has been a success. Gov. Tim Walz said that in a phone conversation with Trump on Monday, the president “agreed to look into reducing the number of federal agents in Minnesota and working with the state in a more coordinated fashion on immigration enforcement regarding violent criminals.”
But who really knows what Trump will do next? Whatever it is, Trump being Trump, you can count on it being self-serving.
Authoritarian leaders often rein in their own enforcers when public backlash threatens their power. Hitler did it in 1934, when the Brownshirts’ zeal for mayhem and murder began to alienate the public and undermine his control. With the intense backlash over the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Trump now faces a similar moment — a choice between escalating the violence or curbing it to preserve his political standing.
But remember this: The end of the Brownshirts’ street violence did not mean the end of the Hitler regime. In fact, it was just the beginning.
The post Should we be comparing ICE agents to Hitler’s ‘Brownshirts?’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Debating Zionism is good for Jews, actually
A group of Jewish Theological Seminary students were furious with the chancellor’s position on Jewish statehood. In protest, they draped flags around campus before graduation, which the administration removed before the ceremony.
The year was 1948. The flags were Israeli. And the dissenting students were protesting Chancellor Louis Finkelstein’s refusal to make support for Jewish statehood part of academic commencement. Some students even arranged for the bells at nearby Union Theological Seminary to play “Hatikvah,” the Israeli national anthem, after JTS officials declined to include it in commencement.
As a historian of American Zionism, I have been thinking about that episode while reading the many vitriolic reactions to a few JTS undergraduates who spoke out in opposition to the seminary’s decision to welcome Israeli President Isaac Herzog as this year’s graduation speaker. Once again, a JTS commencement has become a battleground over Israel, but the sides are now reversed.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether this was the right moment to extend an invitation to Herzog to speak at commencement. What deserves attention is the outraged reaction to a group of students raising objections, and the speed with which those students’ concerns have been cast as a deviation from the historical contours of mainstream American Jewish politics.
A recent Times of Israel blog post, for example, argued that the mere fact that JTS students raised concerns about Herzog was a rupture with Judaism. “Jewish survival without sovereignty is fragile,” wrote the author, Menachem Creditor, adding that “the founders of JTS did not need to debate the necessity of Jewish self-determination,” and that Herzog “represents the state of Israel and the Jewish people.”
These claims erase JTS’s long and sophisticated engagement with Jewish nationalism and the conception of Jewish peoplehood. Reading American Zionism backward risks collapsing peoplehood and statehood, and creating traditions to ratify present assumptions out of a past that never existed.
The relationship between Zionism and JTS was nuanced from the start. Both founding president Sabato Morais and the seminary’s third chancellor, Cyrus Adler, opposed Zionism on religious grounds. Morais believed the restoration of Jewish sovereignty could only come through divine intervention at the dawn of a messianic era. Adler thought of the growth of a non-religious community in the land of Israel “as the greatest misfortune that has happened to the Jews in modern times.”
Solomon Schechter, as chancellor, brought a measure of support for the Zionist movement to JTS; shaped by the cultural Zionism of Ahad Ha-am, Schechter insisted that Zionism transcended statehood. Its primary aim, he argued, was the national regeneration of global Judaism, not the creation of a secular state that would hollow out Jewish life from within.
And the controversies over the 1948 graduation exercises revealed how far Louis Finkelstein stood from political Zionism, even after the establishment of Israel. Where some Zionists celebrated sovereignty, Finkelstein remained focused on the Jewish character of the land and its people. That orientation drew him toward Judah Magnes’s binational vision — that of a federated framework in which Jews and Arabs would each hold recognized rights and a measure of national autonomy within a single shared political entity.
This reticence to conflate Judaism, Zionism and Jewish sovereignty was not limited to the seminary’s chancellors.
Henrietta Szold, JTS’s first female student, a central figure in its intellectual orbit, and the founder of Hadassah, similarly supported a binational vision from her new home in Jerusalem. Mordecai Kaplan — a longtime JTS faculty member, committed Zionist, and one of the most influential American Jewish thinkers of the 20th century — expressed concern throughout his career about the mistake of equating Jewish nationhood with Jewish statehood. In Judaism as a Civilization, he called for a “more ethical conception of nationhood fundamentally as a cultural rather than as a political relationship.”
After Israel’s founding, Kaplan went further, arguing to David Ben-Gurion in 1958 that “the basic assumption that the state of Israel is a Jewish state is itself open to question.” The Israeli government’s task, he insisted, was to establish “a modern state, not a Jewish state, an Israeli state, not a Jewish state.”
These questions did not disappear even as JTS evolved under new leadership.
Gerson Cohen, whose chancellorship beginning in 1972 marked a shift toward a more pro-statist posture, embraced the state’s significance for Jewish life and identity in ways his predecessors had not. Yet even Cohen insisted that commitment to Judaism must rest “not on political statehood or upon geography but solely on the idea of covenant and commitment to ethos.” He argued that a flourishing diaspora was a necessity for Jewish civilization as a whole, not adjunct to Israeli interests.
His successor, Chancellor Emeritus Ismar Schorsch, was more direct, saying in a recent warning that Jews must ensure that “Judaism qua religion is not submerged and shredded by the power of the Jewish state.”
One can disagree with any of these perspectives. In fact, the disagreement itself is the point.
The leaders who built JTS debated Jewish self-determination, Zionism and statehood while living through the Holocaust, the collapse of European Jewish life, existential danger in Palestine, and the precarious birth of the state of Israel. They were not naïve about antisemitism, indifferent to Jewish survival, or ignorant of Jewish sources. Nor were they unsophisticated about Zionism.
Instead, they offered a more demanding account of Zionism: one that affirmed a Jewish homeland and insisted that Jewish power remain answerable to Jewish ethics, all without diminishing Jewish life in the diaspora.
This is precisely the perspective that has been crowded out of our contemporary discourse, not because these questions were answered, but because the space to ask them has collapsed. As the boundaries of acceptable Zionist discourse have narrowed, issues that arose from within Zionism itself — the potential dangers of equating the Israeli state with the Jewish people, the risks of elevating political statehood above other ethical and communal commitments, and the need to have diaspora Jewish life be seen as carrying independent religious and moral weight — have come to be treated as anti-Zionist rather than part of a living internal debate.
The furor over the JTS undergraduates’ letter objecting to Herzog is a troubling sign that, across American Jewish life, it has become harder to think honestly about the risks of treating support for the state of Israel not merely as a Jewish commitment, but as one that takes precedence over other all other Jewish commitments. When the past is rewritten so that the equation of peoplehood and statehood appears inevitable, American Jews are left with a false choice: either embrace the state as an unquestioned and unquestionable expression of Jewish identity, or abandon Jewish life altogether.
JTS has offered its students a richer education because, in its halls, the relationship between the Jewish people and the Jewish state has been debated and contested. That discourse is not a failure of Jewish commitment, but an expression of it. The sustained engagement with the hardest questions of Zionism is one of the best things JTS has given American Jewish life, and one of the most important gifts it still has to offer.
The post Debating Zionism is good for Jews, actually appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Sidesteps ‘Genocide’ Accusations Against Israel
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands, Feb. 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
Karim Khan, the embattled chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has cast fresh doubt on accusations that Israel committed “genocide” in Gaza, arguing in a new interview that no legal conclusion has yet been reached in the ongoing legal battle.
In a lengthy interview with anti-Israel journalist Medhi Hasan this week, Khan refused to engage in the popularized rhetoric labeling Israel’s military campaign against Hamas terrorists in Gaza as genocidal, even as pressure mounts on the ICC by activists to pursue more sweeping charges against Israeli officials.
When asked directly whether Israel’s conduct amounted to genocide, Khan emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to level charges against Israeli officials and that prosecutors must follow evidence and legal standards rather than political narratives.
“So, you’re not ruling out that there could be a warrant in the future?” Hasan asked.
“Everything is a function of evidence,” Khan responded, arguing that accusing Israel of genocide for political purposes would be “reckless.”
“You’re saying in the past three years there hasn’t been evidence of genocide in Gaza?” Hasan asked, visibly flummoxed.
Khan lamented the “suffering” in Gaza but reaffirmed that the ICC could not proceed in making final judgements about the nature of Israel’s military operations in Gaza without sufficient evidence. He asserted that officials within the ICC are vigorously analyzing the case and that he cannot reveal more about the nature of the investigation.
“So, genocide is not off limits?” Hasan pressed.
“No crime is off limits if the evidence is there,” Khan responded.
Khan has come under fire for making his initial surprise demand for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on the same day in May 2024 that he suddenly canceled a long-planned visit to both Gaza and Israel to collect evidence of alleged war crimes. The last-second cancellation reportedly infuriated US and British leaders, as the trip would have offered Israeli leaders a first opportunity to present their position and outline any action they were taking to respond to the war crime allegations.
Nonetheless, Khan’s latest remarks are likely to reverberate through international legal and diplomatic circles, where the genocide accusation has become one of the most contentious aspects of the war between Israel and Hamas. Over the past two years, an array of humanitarian organizations and human rights experts have accused Israel of “genocide” in Gaza. These accusations have been controversial and widely contested, with critics alleging these groups and individuals lack sufficient evidence.
Khan’s comments come as the ICC faces intense scrutiny over its investigation into the conflict. In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel as it is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the court. Other countries including the US have similarly not signed the ICC charter. However, the ICC has asserted jurisdiction by accepting “Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, despite no such state being recognized under international law.
Genocide is among the most difficult crimes to prove under international law because prosecutors must establish specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Hasan, one of the most prominent anti-Israel critics in media, has spent the past two years unleashing an unrelenting barrage of criticism against the Jewish state, repeatedly accusing the Israeli military of pursuing a “genocide” in Gaza.
In the interview, Khan also forcefully denied allegations of sexual misconduct that have engulfed his office in recent months, accusing critics of politicizing the claims amid the ICC’s high-profile investigations into Israel, Russia, and other global conflicts. He dismissed suggestions that his pursuit of Israeli leaders was intended to distract from the allegations against him, saying that he did not have evidence to substantiate the claim.
Khan further alleged that senior Western officials attempted to pressure the ICC over its investigation, including what he described as warnings from prominent American and British political figures about the geopolitical consequences of targeting Israeli officials.
The ICC’s investigation has placed the court at the center of an increasingly bitter international divide over the Gaza war. Khan’s comments won’t settle the debate, but the ICC prosecutor appeared to signal a more cautious legal approach than some of Israel’s fiercest critics have demanded.
Uncategorized
UK Police Charge Two Men in Connection with Filming Antisemitic TikTok Videos
The TikTok logo is pictured outside the company’s US head office in Culver City, California, US, Sep. 15, 2020. Photo: REUTERS
British police have charged two men with religiously aggravated harassment offenses after they were alleged to have traveled to a Jewish area of north London to film antisemitic social media videos.
The two men, Adam Bedoui, 20, and Abdelkader Amir Bousloub, 21, are due to appear at Thames Magistrates’ Court, a statement from the Crown Prosecution Service said on Saturday.