Uncategorized
Some people are learning the wrong lessons from Ahmed al-Ahmed
Ahmed al-Ahmed’s seizure of a gun from one of the two killers in the Bondi Beach massacre over the weekend was irresistible to anyone looking for a sliver of hope in an otherwise completely devastating attack.
And yet that wasn’t how some chose to spin it.
On parts of the left, the focus on al-Ahmed seemed to eclipse what should have been the dominant story — simmering antisemitism exploding into shocking violence — while some on the right scrambled to erase al-Ahmed’s religious identity or claim he was an aberration rather than a reminder of our shared humanity.
Rosy Pirani, a liberal social media influencer, told her nearly 700,000 followers on Instagram that the massacre was “evil” but emphasized another “truth buried under agenda-driven narratives.”
“The man who put his life on the line, stopped the attacker and saved countless Jewish lives was Muslim,” she wrote in a Monday post shared thousands of times. “Muslim violence is amplified. Muslim heroism is buried. Good Muslims don’t fit the narrative, so they’re edited out.”
In fact, al-Ahmed’s courage was being so widely celebrated that Mehdi Hasan, the veteran journalist, focused his analysis of the Bondi shooting on what it meant for Muslims.
“Even the well-meaning liberals who say, ‘Hey, look, look a Muslim saved the day! See, it proves Muslims are peaceful,’ — well it shouldn’t require a hero,” Hasan argued.
A fair point, but one that elided any discussion of the antisemitism that motivated the original massacre, which he described more simply as an inexcusable act of terrorism.
It should be indisputable by now that, among the scores who have protested Israel’s actions in Gaza over the past two years, are some who were motivated by antisemitism — or who have gravitated toward antisemitism over time — and are willing to vent their anger at Israel through violence and discrimination against Jews in the diaspora.
While the motives of the Bondi Beach perpetrators remain less clear than the D.C. and Boulder killers — who both shouted anti-Zionist slogans while carrying out their attacks — police said the younger gunman, Naveed Akram, had ties to an Islamic preacher who was recently convicted of inciting hatred for referring to Jews as a “treacherous” and “vile people” who were “descendants of apes and pigs.”
Wissam Haddad, the preacher, said that he was simply trying to convey that “what the Israeli government is doing to the people of Gaza” is “not something new.”
This kind of antisemitic logic — either that Israel’s faults are the result of it being a country run by Jews, or that its faults justify animosity toward all Jews — has become prevalent. Yet that received little discussion among many prominent left-wing figures who responded to the Sydney attack as if it were a natural disaster.
***
The lack of introspection was also glaring among Jewish leaders who seized on the attack as proof that the framework they’ve used to understand antisemitism in recent years was right all along. As Em Hilton, policy director at the left-wing Diaspora Alliance and an Australian Jew, wrote in +972 Magazine:
Before the blood of the victims had even dried, right-wing politicians and public figures — in Australia and around the world — were declaring the attack a consequence of growing anti-Zionist sentiment and pro-Palestine activism, without any proof or indication of the attackers’ motivations.
Deborah Lipstadt, President Joe Biden’s former antisemitism envoy, claimed that Zohran Mamdani had helped “facilitate” the Sydney killings by declining to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada,” a term Mamdani has never used but which he has been asked about for months.
Meanwhile, Sen. John Fetterman, a darling of the pro-Israel crowd, rather bizzarely responded to the attack by writing on X, “I stand and grieve with Israel.”
And that’s to say nothing of how some on the right responded to al-Ahmed’s bravery. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially claimed that al-Ahmed was Jewish, while others online tried to insist he was a Maronite Christian rather than a Muslim.
“There were zero Ahmed al-Ahmeds in Gaza,” an anonymous pro-Israel influencer who goes by Max Nordau posted on X.
This kneejerk insistence that any political opposition to Israel — including the Australian government’s recent recognition of a Palestinian state — is to blame for the worst instances of antisemitic violence inevitably pushes Israel’s critics into a defensive posture from which they’re loath to consider whether some of their their broad demonization of “Zionists,” for example, might be fueling antisemitism.
***
The Australian massacre might have put some things in perspective, suggesting that the biggest problem facing Jews is not “globalize the intifada” — a slogan that is neither especially popular, nor described as a call for violence by many of its proponents — but rather murderous violence carried out by antisemitic zealots.
And similarly, those focused on defending Palestinian rights should perhaps have viewed the attack as a wake-up call for considering who they accept as part of their movement and who they shun, whether that’s antisemitic preachers in Sydney or protesters outside a Manhattan synagogue chanting for Hamas to “take another settler out.”
Yet sadly, I have seen tragically few good faith efforts to take stock of how we got here, and to draw an honest line in the sand that sets aside one’s views on Israel in favor of a divide between antisemites who would perpetrate or encourage this kind of horrendous violence from those who believe Jews deserve to live in safety and dignity.
Instead, the discourse on antisemitism has calcified to the point that now it seems like little more than a proxy for views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which those most invested are loath to reconsider their positions even in the face of shocking events.
The post Some people are learning the wrong lessons from Ahmed al-Ahmed appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes
(JTA) — JERUSALEM – The United Kingdom threatened to sanction Israelis involved in West Bank settlement expansion after the Jewish state’s Lands Authority opened bids for 1,234 homes in the largely underdeveloped E1 section of the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim.
Construction in E1 “would cut across the heart of Palestine and risks separating the West Bank from East Jerusalem, which would endanger the viability of a two-state solution,” the British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said in a special statement he posted on X on Thursday.
Targeted sanctions, Miliband wrote, would be part of a series of measures his government would take. His office also summoned Israel’s charge d’Affaires Thursday to demand a closure of the bidding process, which first opened on Tuesday, and a withdrawal of the construction project altogether.
“Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution,” he wrote. Miliband has held his position for a month and is part of the new leadership Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham appointed when he took office in July.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attacked Miliband on X, stating that Britain’s “decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate.”
He said that the U.K. government’s “systematic policy of blaming only Israel while ignoring Palestinian extremism has already contributed to a massive wave of antisemitic hatred and attacks against the British Jewish community.”
The Jewish people have the same right to “live throughout the Land of Israel” just as the British people have a right to live anywhere in the U.K., Sa’ar wrote.
Plans to expand the built-up area of Ma’aleh Adumim settlement by constructing some 3,400 housing units on a largely underdeveloped hilltop within the city’s boundaries have been in place since 1994 when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister.
Israel mostly froze those plans under pressure from the international community, including the U.S., with many countries warning that building homes in E1 would harm their diplomatic ties with Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began to advance the project in earnest in 2012 to protest the United Nations General Assembly decision to grant the Palestinians the status of a non-member state and has since pushed the project forward in spurts, particularly during election seasons.
The publication of the bidding process for the homes was first announced on Tuesday and is set to close on Oct. 19, one week shy of the Israeli elections on Oct. 27. Opening the bids is a move that plays well with Netanyahu’s right-wing voter base, which opposes Palestinian statehood and believes that settlements like Ma’aleh Adumim and the E1 area should be annexed into sovereign Israel.
But the move reverberated globally, with the U.K. signing onto a joint condemnation by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, in which they warned that settlement building in E1 distanced peace and undermined the country’s international standing.
They also reminded businesses who might bid for E1 construction that they could face legal or reputational consequences, given that such companies could be in breach of international law.
Palestinian Authority Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh said he welcomed the condemnation, explaining on X that such a position “reflects the importance of the international role in confronting settlement activity and safeguarding the two-state solution.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first
(JTA) — An Argentine federal judge was removed from office Tuesday for a series of antisemitic posts on his social media accounts that constituted misconduct incompatible with his role, an impeachment panel ruled.
Alfredo Eugenio López, who headed Federal Court No. 4 in the coastal city of Mar del Plata, was removed by Argentina’s Jury of Impeachment, a special panel composed of judges, lawmakers and lawyers.
It is the first time in Argentina’s history that a judge has been removed over antisemitic remarks.
In López’s social media posts, the judge referred to the Jewish people as “a brood of vipers,” Israel as a “fictitious state” and Argentinian Jews as “foreigners.” He has also used such terms as “Zionist” and “gay” as insults.
According to the panel, the judge committed acts of “discrimination and the denial of equal rights against the Argentine Jewish community. For the purposes of these proceedings, it is particularly significant that, by acting in this manner, he shattered public confidence in his continued fitness to administer justice impartially.”The case reached the panel through Argentina’s Council of the Magistracy, based in Buenos Aires, the constitutional body responsible for the selection and discipline of federal judges.
The first complaint against López was filed in February 2025 by the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, which is the umbrella organization representing Argentina’s Jewish community. One month later, the Argentine Forum Against Antisemitism also filed a complaint. In July 2025, attorney Yamil Santoro from Apolo Foundation added another one.
In his defense, López argued that his messages were “ subjective and decontextualized interpretations of exchanges on social media, which in no way affect the administration of justice or his impartiality” as a judge. He added that his remarks were unrelated to any pending case and that he had never been recused or removed from any judicial case.
Neither Lopez nor his attorney were immediately available for further comment.
“He was removed because he simply would not stop engaging in hate speech,” jury member Alberto Maques said during a live interview Tuesday on the A24 news channel. “It is absolutely disgraceful for a federal judge to engage in this kind of conduct.”
Maques said there were 15 social media posts that he acknowledged, but more than 50 posts in which he said “outrageous things that are not worth repeating because they truly constituted hate speech.”
“This is not merely an issue of hate speech against the Jewish community. This is someone who lacks common sense,” he added, interviewed by A24 news channel.
Prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings argued that the messages were not isolated political comments but reflected a pattern of hostility toward Jews, Zionism, and the State of Israel.
“No position of authority can shield hatred. This is not a matter of punishing an opinion. It is about sanctioning repeated conduct involving antisemitism, hostility and dehumanization, conduct incompatible with the impartiality, dignity and public trust required of the judiciary,” DAIA said Tuesday in a statement.
“This case sets a precedent: for the first time in more than a century, DAIA initiated proceedings of this nature against a judge. No office is above democracy.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race
(JTA) — California progressive Aisha Wahab defeated AIPAC-backed moderate Melissa Hernandez in a congressional runoff this week, capping off a contest that had become unexpectedly tight after the pro-Israel lobby entered the fray.
The Associated Press called the race between the Democrats — who were vying to replace a disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell — a full two days after polls closed, when Wahab secured 53.1% of votes to Hernandez’s 46.9%, with 95% of ballots tallied. The gap between them grew by four percentage points from Tuesday evening, when Wahab had held a narrow 51% lead to Hernandez’s 49%.
“We stayed focused on the people, and I will fight for this district that raised me,” Wahab said in a Thursday statement, noting her journey “from foster care to Congress” in her East Bay community.
Although Wahab ended up victorious, the narrow initial margin on Tuesday shocked California’s 14th District, given that she had secured a double-digit lead in preliminary races two months ago.
But in the past few weeks, an unforeseen variable appeared to influence the trajectories of the two campaigns: a massive spending push from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee aimed at turning the tides for Hernandez.
Since the beginning of August alone, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, and other affiliated groups spent more than $2.5 million on both boosting Hernandez and denigrating Wahab with negative ads and mailers, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
“This was not a landslide for Wahab by any means,” local Democratic strategist Noah Finneburgh, who is not affiliated with either candidate, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“They narrowed the gap for sure,” Finneburgh added, referring to AIPAC. “They spent millions of dollars attacking Wahab very aggressively.”
These attacks, he explained, did not involve Israel and instead focused on divisive issues for the Bay Area, such as public safety and protecting kids.
“Negative advertising with a persuasive message can be very effective,” Finneburgh said.
In her Thursday night statement, Wahab declared that her “district cannot be bought,” describing the race as “one of the ugliest, most expensive elections we’ve ever seen.”
Prior to this influx of cash and related ads, neither AIPAC nor Israel had played a significant role in this short-lived race — which began in April following Swalwell’s resignation over allegations of sexual assault.
When the district held a special primary to seek Swalwell’s replacement on June 16, Wahab and Hernandez finished as the top-two candidates and moved on to this week’s special general runoff election.
California primaries are “nonpartisan” or “top-two” races, in which the two highest ranking candidates move on to the general election, irrespective of their parties. The top-two in this case were both Democrats, like Swalwell, in a district that the Cook Political Report deems solidly blue.
Even though Wahab will now finish the remainder of Swalwell’s term, she will have to compete with Hernandez again in the November general election for a full term that begins on January 3, 2027.
In a June 16 special primary that preceded this week’s runoff, there was still a massive gap between the two candidates, with Wahab accruing 42.8% of the votes, compared to Hernandez’s 16.8%. A separate primary for the November race, which occurred two weeks earlier, placed Wahab at 38.3% and Hernandez at 17.2%.
Wahab, who will be the first Afghan American in Congress, has focused on affordability, civil rights, education and climate change. Her campaign calls for an end to wars and “prolonged occupations” but only specifically calls out U.S. military activity in “Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.”
Though Wahab has been critical of Israel and its operations in Gaza, she has not been as vocal about the issue as many other progressive colleagues nationwide. She responded “yes” when asked if Israel was committing genocide in a primary debate, but she didn’t include Israel or Gaza in her campaign priorities.
During a recent appearance on far-right influencer Hasan Piker’s livestream, Wahab acknowledged that “it’s not a zero-sum game in the Middle East,” adding that “we can care for all people.” She also referenced a resolution she introduced last year in the California legislature, pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza but also condemning Hamas and demanding the release of the hostages.
“We talk about both Palestinians and the Israeli victims there,” Wahab told Piker. “We talk about holding the perpetrators accountable from both sides.”
Asked if she was in favor of “ending all U.S. aid to Israel,” she responded “yes,” while stressing that “humanitarian aid is important to me, too.”
Wahab has earned the backing of multiple labor unions, the California Democratic Party and Our Revolution, the group formed by Sen. Bernie Sanders to advance the progressive movement. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street also recently invested $108,000 in her campaign, according to the FEC. American Priorities, a pro-Palestinian PAC, also spent at least $200,000 on supporting her.
Hernandez has received endorsements from several police and fire unions, as well as Democratic Jewish Reps. Lois Frankel of Florida and Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Come November, Hernandez will gain one additional asset. Due to statewide redistricting, the 14th District will gain about 26,000 new voters from Dublin, where Hernandez previously served as mayor, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
But Finneburgh said he believes that Hernandez has only a minimal chance of winning that race, especially because Wahab will be heading into that election as an incumbent.
He also suggested that if “she plays her card right,” Wahab could even take some endorsements away from Hernandez.
“There’s going to be people who are going to probably move over from the Hernandez camp and back her,” Finneburgh added. “It’s going to be hard to unseat her.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race appeared first on The Forward.
