Uncategorized
Soviet Jewry protest leaders in San Francisco secretly recruited help from Jews for Jesus, FBI file says
(JTA) – Organizers of protests on behalf of Soviet Jewry in San Francisco in the early 1970s might have bolstered crowds by secretly recruiting participants from Jews for Jesus.
The explosive revelation that Jewish leaders turned to a Christian missionary group for help appears in a 1973 FBI memo that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency recently obtained through a freedom of information request.
The FBI file details an apparent relationship between Martin Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, and Joel Brooks and Harold Light, two prominent San Francisco Jewish leaders at the fore of local efforts in the movement to get Soviet authorities to end restrictions on the emigration of the country’s Jewish population. The relationship outlined in the declassified memo has not appeared in scholarship on the Soviet Jewry movement, nor is it known to activists of the movement who were interviewed by JTA. Light, Brooks and Rosen are deceased.
If the FBI’s intelligence is accurate, a successful and cherished social movement that unified much of the global Jewish community in common purpose for decades relied at least to some extent in San Francisco on the support of a group, rejected by nearly all of that community, whose mission is to proselytize to Jews.
“The first thing I thought of was, I’m reading something from ‘The Twilight Zone’ — in my many years in the Soviet Jewry movement, I don’t know if I’ve seen a document as strange as this,” said Morey Schapira, who served in leadership positions in the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, the Bay Area Council for Soviet Jews, and the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews. “The idea of working with a slimy group like Jews for Jesus, it’s beyond my comprehension.”
The public can request any FBI files that may exist pertaining to deceased individuals. An FBI memo relating Rosen arrived last November in response to one of about 50 freedom of information requests on prominent figures in recent Jewish history submitted by JTA almost two years ago. Most of JTA’s requests are still pending. TO DOWNLOAD THE FBI FILE, CLICK HERE.
Dated May 24, 1973, and written by an FBI informant whose name was redacted by staff at the U.S. National Archive, the memo focuses on Brooks, who was the Northern California director of the American Jewish Congress for about 30 years starting in 1967.
“[Brooks] has heavily utilized the services of the young Jews in the Jews for Jesus group,” the informant wrote. “[He] has used these services to turn out people in his Soviet Jewry demonstrations.”
The informant also cites Brooks as saying that Light, leader of the Bay Area Council for Soviet Jewry, used members of Jews for Jesus in a “hush-hush way” to distribute leaflets and participate in demonstrations.
The memo spells out why such an arrangement would be best kept out of the public eye.
“All of this, of course, is secret, because organized Jewish groups, and the various rabbinical councils have proclaimed that Jews for Jesus are no longer Jews but have become apostates, and should not be palled around with, nor buried in Jewish cemeteries,” the informant writes.
Martin “Moishe” Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus in 1975. (Denver Post via Getty Images)
The upside for Rosen was obvious: His group would gain a foothold in a popular Jewish movement, offering a potential avenue toward legitimacy and a pool of possible recruits. In his 1974 memoir, titled “Jews for Jesus,” Rosen openly discussed being accepted into the movement by Jewish organizers, but he did so without naming Brooks, Light or any others.
He wrote that Jews for Jesus were invited because of their reputation as the “best qualified, best disciplined demonstrators in the San Francisco community. We’ve had more experience than other Jewish groups and are familiar with the applicable laws and regulations.”
Rosen’s group committed to not use the demonstrations as an opportunity to evangelize and didn’t bring any Christian literature or wear outfits that would identify them, according to the memoir.
“Many Jews for Jesus believe in the freedom of Soviet Jewry just as strongly as any other Jews, and we want to be as effective as possible when we demonstrate to support that cause,” Rosen wrote.
To Schapira, who led the Bay Area Council for Soviet Jews for years and knew both Brooks and Light, however, it’s unclear why the Soviet Jewry movement would have wanted or needed Jews for Jesus. Schapira didn’t recall it ever being especially difficult to turn out demonstrators organically. There didn’t seem to be a need to resort to secret deals.
“If you look at the picture of the rallies in those days, they even had people like [American folk music legend] Joan Baez,” Schapira said. “They developed a relationship with her and she would come to the rally and bring her guitar and sing songs for freedom.”
He added, “If we needed an instant rally, we were a grassroots organization and we could produce 10 or 12 people, which might be enough to send a message to the Russians and get some publicity in the local papers.”
At least a few people in the Bay Area’s Jewish community caught wind of the secret relationship between Brooks and Jews for Jesus at the time, according to the memo.
Stephanie Rodgers was a coordinator of the Jewish Defense League, an extremist right-wing Jewish group that was under heavy FBI surveillance. Founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, the JDL applied its often violent tactics to resist Jews for Jesus’ public campaign to convert Jews. Rodgers visited Brooks’ office ahead of a planned demonstration in front of the Soviet consulate in San Francisco and asked about his connection to Rosen and Jews for Jesus, according to the memo.
After Brooks explained how they had been useful, Rodgers “smiled and was very pleasant on the surface,” the memo says. But at the demonstration, Rodgers and a group of other JDL activists showed up even though they said they would stay away, and they found Rosen in the crowd and proceeded to attack him and “kicked him in the groin.”
JDL regularly disrupted Jews for Jesus events; the organization would ultimately claim responsibility for firebombing a bus operated by Jews for Jesus in Brooklyn and abducting an adherent. In the Bay Area, where both groups were active, tensions were particularly high; the Jewish Defense League would sue the local Jews for Jesus chapter over what it charged was the group’s misuse of the JDL’s name and imagery.
Brooks, meanwhile, had more affable ties with Jews for Jesus. It’s unclear how or when Rosen and Brooks developed a relationship, but Brooks noted in a July 25, 1972, letter he wrote to the office of the American Jewish Congress in New York that their ties had started “some time ago.” The letter is found in the records of the Northern California branch of the American Jewish Congress, which are archived at the University of California Berkeley’s library.
A prominent advocacy group in its heyday, the American Jewish Congress — not to be confused with the American Jewish Committee — took a more liberal political stance than that of Jewish establishment groups on many issues.
Brooks had learned that his organization’s national headquarters wanted to undertake a study of Jews for Jesus and he wished to provide insight. He was under no illusion about the group’s objective: “The sole aim of these men is to enlist new converts to Christianity,” Brooks wrote in the letter.
“Through contact with Rosen I have developed a great deal of insight into how his organization operates, their source of funding, budget, etc. which I wish to share with you,” he added.
Then as now, members of Jews for Jesus and other Messianic groups felt unfairly rejected by the Jewish world, arguing that their Christian beliefs should have a place in the community.
In the early 1970s, when Jews for Jesus’ conversion drive was prominent and well funded, Brooks was perceived as more lenient, according to the foreword to the 2017 book “Converging Destinies: Jews, Christians, and the Mission of God.”
“Brooks tried to keep some of us connected to the Jewish community and Jewish life,” Calvin J. Smith wrote in the foreword. “I remember going with another Jew for Jesus to a Jewish consciousness raising session he held at a home in Marin County in the early 1970s.”
Glenn Richter was one of the founders of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry and operates as a walking encyclopedia of the movement.
Protestors dressed as prisoners behind bars, alongside a man holding a placard reading “Solidarity with Soviet Jews,” stand together with members of New York’s Jewish community as they take to the streets during the Solidarity Sunday for Soviet Jewry demonstration in protest at the Soviet Union’s treatment of Jewish people, in New York City, April 18, 1975. (Images Press/Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
He said the movement did collaborate with many Christians outside of Jews for Jesus. For example, he said there were Scandinavians, who, on weekend trips to Leningrad (today St. Petersburg), brought in Jewish material that was banned in the Soviet Union. Others set up safe houses in Finland in expectation of fleeing Soviet Jews. And the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews raised millions of dollars from evangelicals to help transport Soviet Jews to Israel.
“Of course, among these goodhearted souls are those who have conversion of Jews in mind, but I suspect most have wanted to fulfill their prophecy of ingathering Jews to Israel so that a Christian messiah could return,” Richter said.
In his eyes, Jews for Jesus represented a red line.
“Our Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry office on Manhattan’s West 72nd Street was down the block from a church with a Jewish Messianic constituency, and we would never, ever, try to work with them,” Richter said.
Andrew Esensten contributed research to this story.
—
The post Soviet Jewry protest leaders in San Francisco secretly recruited help from Jews for Jesus, FBI file says appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel Prepares for ‘Extreme Scenario’ With Iran, Warns Regime Will Face ‘Unimaginable’ Response if Tehran Strikes
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference in Jerusalem, Sept. 2, 2024. Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/Pool via REUTERS
Amid escalating regional tensions, Israel has warned Iran that any attempt to attack the Jewish state will be met with an “unimaginable” response, attempting to deter Tehran while preparing for an “extreme scenario” in which the Iranian regime strikes the Israeli homeland with an unprecedented level of force.
“Extremist forces refuse to lay down their arms and are regrouping to confront us once more … We are ready and remain on high alert to defend ourselves against any threat,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a speech at the graduation ceremony of the 74th Combat Officers Course of the 1st Airborne Division on Thursday.
“We are coordinating closely with our key ally, the United States. One thing is certain: If the ayatollahs [Iranian leaders] make the mistake of attacking us, they will face a response they can’ even imagine,” the Israeli leader continued. “We are prepared to fight to safeguard our security.”
According to Hebrew media reports, Israeli officials have been on high alert in recent weeks over what they describe as an “extreme Iranian scenario,” amid concerns about a potential surprise attack involving hypersonic missiles, drone swarms, and covert operatives targeting critical infrastructure and key air bases.
Under this scenario, Tehran could launch a coordinated, multi-front attack targeting Israeli Air Force bases, military headquarters, power and water infrastructure, fuel depots, major transport routes, and airports, with the goal of paralyzing the Israel Defense Forces’ air defenses, degrading strike capabilities, and disrupting reserve mobilization.
Israel’s main concern is that a sudden, concentrated barrage of Iranian weapons could overwhelm its air defense system, potentially forcing the IDF to focus on protecting key strategic sites while leaving population centers more exposed, according to Israeli news outlet Walla.
However, Israel has also seen increased backing from the US, which has expanded its military presence in the Persian Gulf and across the Middle East with additional air defense batteries and advanced radar systems.
Amid reports that nuclear talks between the US and Iran have yet to produce any meaningful results, large numbers of US forces are deploying to the region, signaling heightened tensions and the potential for renewed conflict.
According to military news site The War Zone, a significant fleet of fighter, surveillance, and intelligence aircraft have been sent to the Gulf, marking the fastest deployment pace seen in the past month.
At least a dozen F-22 fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia and F-16s from bases in Italy, Germany, and South Carolina have been deployed to the region.
Meanwhile, F-35 jets from the United Kingdom are now headed to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan — a recent hub of US air operations — while a dozen US Navy warships are also active in the area.
Amid mounting regional tensions, Washington could launch military strikes on Iran as soon as Saturday, CBS News reported.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump warned that Iran must reach a “meaningful deal” in its negotiations with the White House within the next 10 days, or “bad things will happen.”
In the case of renewed conflict, US and Israeli officials reportedly expect to cooperate with regional partners to enhance surveillance and provide early warning before threats reach Israeli airspace.
As has often been the case in the past, Iran appears to be receiving only limited public backing from its allies, even as regional tensions continue to rise.
While the regime prepares for the possibility of a US strike, its proxy terrorist groups have so far held back from publicly pledging to take part in any confrontation — although some have vowed to join in the event of an attack on Iran.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stopped short of promising a direct response to an attack on Iran, opting for cautious language while expressing public support for Tehran.
“We do not want war, but we are ready to defend ourselves and will not surrender,” Qassem said during a televised speech.
However, Israel has made it clear that if Hezbollah joins a potential war scenario, it will face a severe and damaging response.
The Houthis have warned against any “adventure” against Yemen, signaling the terrorist group could take part in any retaliatory escalation, reportedly with the US presence in the region as a primary target.
In Iraq, pro-Iranian militias urged fighters to prepare for what they described as a “total war” in support of Iran.
“It must be made clear to our enemies that war against Iran will not be a walk in the park — they will taste the terrible bitterness of death, and nothing of them will remain in our region,” terrorist leader Abu Hussein al-Hamidawy said in a statement.
On Tuesday, in response to US and Israeli threats, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shared an AI-generated image depicting a US aircraft carrier sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
“The US president constantly says that the US has sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware,” the Iranian leader wrote in a post on X. “However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.”
US and Israeli pressure is not the only challenge facing Tehran, as the European Union on Thursday formally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, freezing its funds and financial assets in EU member states and prohibiting EU operators from making economic resources available to the group.
Meanwhile, the regime continues to face growing domestic unrest, with Iranians now marking the traditional chehelom — a Shiite mourning ritual observed 40 days after a person’s death — not only in cemeteries but also in streets and hospitals to honor those killed during last month’s violent government crackdown on nationwide anti-government protests.
Uncategorized
IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Advances Toward Approval in Two US States
Part of an exhibit on the Holocaust supported by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Photo: courtesy of IHRA.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism continues to make progress through state legislatures across the US, with the Wisconsin State Assembly on Tuesday approving a measure which would apply it to hate crime prosecutions and anti-discrimination statutes.
The bill, AB 446, allows for government officials to refer to the IHRA definition for guidance when “evaluating evidence of discriminatory intent for any law, ordinance, or policy in this state that prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin” or determining “enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses” in which a criminal chooses their victim based on racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.
AB 446 passed easily in the State Assembly by a vote of 66-33. Another similar bill awaits consideration by the Senate. If it succeeds there, both legislative proposals will have to be reconciled into a single, signable bill before being presented to Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat.
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
On Monday, the Missouri House of Representatives also passed a bill to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a reference tool for assessing civil rights violations and a provision of policy handbooks for educational institutions. That bill also has a companion in the upper house of Missouri’s bicameral legislature.
The legislation, which would require schools to use the definition, aims to combat antisemitism in K-12 schools and on college campuses. In addition, the bill would require schools to outline prohibited antisemitic actions in their codes of conduct.
Both states advanced the legislation weeks after the City Council of Chicago voted to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The measure was passed on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which commemorated the 81st anniversary of the day when Jewish prisoners were liberated from Auschwitz, the Nazis’ deadliest extermination camp during World War II.
“Chicago now proudly joins a global consensus of more than 1,200 entities worldwide, including the United States, 37 US state governments, and 98 city and country bodies who have adopted this definition,” city council member Debra Silverstein, alderman of the 50th Ward, said in a statement at the time praising the action. “At a time when antisemitic hate crimes are surging locally, this unanimous City Council action sends an unmistakable message that anti-Jewish hate has no place in Chicago.”
Local governments’ embracing the IHRA definition of antisemitism comes amid a historic surge in antisemitic incidents across the US and the world.
In 2024, as reported by the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) latest annual audit, there were 9,354 antisemitic incidents — an average of 25.6 a day — across the US, creating an atmosphere of hate not experienced in the nearly thirty years since the ADL began tracking such data in 1979. Incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault all increased by double digits, and for the first time ever a majority of outrages — 58 percent — were related to the existence of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state.
The ADL also reported dramatic rises in incidents on college campuses, which saw the largest growth in 2024. The 1,694 incidents tallied by the ADL amounted to an 84 percent increase over the previous year. Additionally, antisemites were emboldened to commit more offenses in public in 2024 than they did in 2023, perpetrating 19 percent more attacks on Jewish people, pro-Israel demonstrators, and businesses perceived as being Jewish-owned or affiliated with Jews.
New York City, under its new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, recently revoked the IHRA definition along with a series of other executive orders enacted by his predecessor to combat antisemitism
US Jewish groups have sharply criticized the move.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry similarly lambasted the reversal as an invitation for intensified bigotry against Jewish New Yorkers, saying, “On his very first day as New York City mayor, Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Green Party Congressional Candidate Vows to ‘De-Zionize’ US Government
Former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is running for Congress again in the 2026 election cycle, this time as a Green Party candidate. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has launched a bid to return to Washington under the Green Party, unveiling a campaign platform that sharply denounces Israel and accuses the US government of being controlled by what she calls a “dual-loyalty regime.”
In a statement posted to her campaign website, McKinney alleges a “powerful Zionist lobby has infiltrated every level of our government,” claims US tax dollars are funding what she describes as a “genocide” in Gaza, and calls the US–Israel alliance “a hostage situation.” She further references the “Epstein files,” a series of documents detailing the communications of deceased serial sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, to suggest Israeli intelligence has engaged in criminal wrongdoing, allegations for which she provides no evidence.
McKinney’s platform proposes sweeping measures such as immediately ending all US military aid to Israel, revoking tax-exempt status for organizations she characterizes as foreign agents, supporting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, backing Palestinian “right of return” claims, and ceasing US diplomatic protection for Israeli officials at international courts.
Additionally, she has posted campaign graphics calling to “De-Zionize the government” and shared a quote blaming her 2006 reelection loss on pro-Israel supporters, claiming “Zionists undermined Dr. McKinney’s reelection.” The candidate also shared a quote from the antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan which claimed that she lost reelection because “she was not pro-Zionist.”
The rhetoric marks one of the most stridently anti-Israel campaign platforms in recent US political history. While debate over US policy toward Israel has intensified amid the ongoing war in Gaza, McKinney’s framing goes well beyond the positions held by most Democrats, including many progressive lawmakers critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Advocacy groups and Jewish organizations have long warned that language describing a shadowy “Zionist lobby” controlling American institutions echoes historical antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty and secret influence. Mainstream critics of Israeli policy typically distinguish between opposition to specific government actions and broader conspiratorial claims about Jewish political control.
McKinney, who represented Georgia in Congress for six terms before losing her seat in 2006, has a history of clashing with pro-Israel groups and Democratic leadership. After her congressional career, she became the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2008. She has also previously participated in attempts to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, including voyages on the SS Dignity and Spirit of Humanity.
Moreover, McKinney is running to fill the seat previously vacated by former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene came under fire over issuing a series of antisemitic remarks suggesting that Israel exerts control over US foreign policy and that the war in Gaza is a “genocide.”
The US–Israel relationship, spanning more than seven decades, includes extensive military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and economic ties. Israel is widely viewed by US officials as a key strategic ally in the Middle East.
Under US law, foreign lobbying is regulated through the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and tax-exempt status is governed by strict Internal Revenue Service rules. Legal experts note that broad revocations based on political advocacy would face significant constitutional hurdles.
McKinney’s campaign announcement comes at a moment of heightened polarization over the Israel-Hamas war and US involvement in the Middle East. Whether her uncompromising platform resonates with Georgia voters remains to be seen, but it is likely to reignite debate over the boundaries between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and rhetoric critics say veers into conspiracy and antisemitism.