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
Mamdani draws lines around how Jews should use ‘sacred spaces’
After protesters hounded people entering an event promoting immigration to Israel at Park East Synagogue in Manhattan last month, Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani condemned the demonstration — with a notable caveat.
“He believes every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation,” Dora Pekec, Mamdani’s spokesperson, said in a statement. “And that these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.”
Mamdani may have had a previous news cycle in mind when he issued this response. Last year, protesters in New Jersey and California were accused of antisemitism for demonstrating outside several synagogues before the target of their ire — real estate seminars offering property in the Israeli-occupied West Bank — became clear and blunted some of the criticism.
But the event at Park East was more complicated than the real estate seminars, and Mamdani’s implicit condemnation of the synagogue for hosting it marked a messy entry into the fight over when Jews deserve protection, and when they don’t.
***
Protesters were targeting an event hosted by Nefesh B’Nefesh, an NGO sponsored by the Israeli government that serves as the primary clearinghouse for North American Jews who want to make aliyah, or immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, regardless of their politics.
The argument that any synagogue that promotes aliyah is engaged in the violation of international law is so charged because almost every mainstream congregation in the United States supports Jews moving to Israel, at least implicitly. Aliyah is a core component of Zionism and rooted in the religious beliefs of many Jews. Nefesh B’Nefesh references a line from the Torah, “we shall surely ascend and inherit the Land,” in its promotional materials.
Mamdani’s office tried to clarify his statement following the initial uproar, and stated that he only objected to Nefesh B’Nefesh encouraging immigration to Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law.
But here’s the rub: The Israeli government refuses to acknowledge any meaningful distinction between Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the rest of Israel — and, in fact, they often make distinguishing between the two illegal.
This came up in my reporting on Ben & Jerry’s unsuccessful attempt to stop doing business in Israeli settlements. Marc Stern, chief legal officer at the American Jewish Committee, explained to me that the Israeli government prohibits businesses from refusing to serve settlements. That means operating in Israel effectively requires operating in the West Bank, and boycotting Israeli settlements in the West Bank — a strategy once referred to as “Zionist B.D.S.” — effectively means boycotting the rest of Israel.
So it’s true that Nefesh B’Nefesh lists several Israeli settlements as potential destinations for American Jews. But as a quasi-state enterprise, the organization likely couldn’t exclude the settlements from its programming even if it wanted to.
***
The possibility that contemporary support for Israel may be inseparable, at least in practice, from supporting Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, has caused plenty of consternation among American Jews.
But it’s treacherous territory for Mamdani to enter because, as I’ve written before, failing to distinguish between Jewish leaders and organizations that are actively promoting and supporting a right-wing vision of Israel, and everyone else, risks declaring open season on the vast majority of American Jews.
And the protesters outside Park East certainly weren’t making careful distinctions about where, exactly, those in attendance were interested in moving.
Chants from demonstrators included “resistance, you make us proud, take another settler out,” reported Luke Tress in the Times of Israel, and “settlers, settlers, go back home, Palestine is ours alone,” celebrating violence against Israeli civilians and calling for the wholesale expulsion of Jews from Israel — both of which would be violation of international law in their own right.
Mamdani is clearly wary of playing into the hands of Jewish leaders who consider the vast majority of demonstrations against Israel to be antisemitic. But many synagogues display Israeli flags on the bimah, organize congregational trips to Israel and issue statements of solidarity with Israel during times of war.
The Park East incident was no doubt only a preview of things to come, and as Mamdani prepares to take office he’ll need to decide with much more precision what, exactly, he believes marks a synagogue as sacred or profane.
GO DEEPER:
- What does Mamdani’s response to synagogue protests mean for Jews? No one will like the answer.
- NYPD commissioner Jessica Tisch apologizes for allowing ‘turmoil’ outside synagogue
- Most American Jews believe Zohran Mamdani will make NYC Jews less safe, Israeli poll finds
- What the LA synagogue pro-Palestinian protest was really about
The post Mamdani draws lines around how Jews should use ‘sacred spaces’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel Publishes Draft Law Seeking to Boost State Revenues From Dead Sea Minerals
A drone picture shows part of the Dead Sea and its shore near Ein Gedi, Israel, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
Israel on Wednesday published a draft law that aims to boost state revenues from a concession for extracting minerals from the Dead Sea as well as tackling its environmental consequences.
The Finance Ministry said the proposed law intends to redefine the concession to ensure the public and the state get their rightful share, while ensuring the preservation of nature and environmental values.
“The law serves as the basis for allocating the concession and the terms of the future tender for resource extraction from the Dead Sea, with an emphasis on promoting optimal competition, lowering entry barriers, and attracting leading international players,” it said.
Fertilizer maker ICL Group has held the concession, giving it exclusive rights to minerals from the Dead Sea site, for five decades, but its permit is set to expire in 2030.
Last month, ICL gave up right of first refusal for its Dead Sea concession under a government plan to open it up for tender, although it would receive some $3 billion if it loses the permit when it expires.
ICL, one of the world’s largest potash producers, has previously said its Dead Sea assets were worth $6 billion. ICL extracts mainly potash and magnesium from the concession.
Under the draft law, which still needs preliminary approval from lawmakers, the state‘s share of concession profits would ultimately rise to an average of 50% from 35% currently, partly through royalties, the ministry said.
The law also aims to tackle negative impacts of resource extraction activities in the Dead Sea, which continues to shrink.
ICL plans to participate in the future tender and has said it believes it is the most suitable candidate to operate the future concession.
Accountant General Yali Rothenberg said the law places emphasis on fair, efficient, and responsible use of one of Israel’s most important natural resources.
It “will ensure that the state maximizes economic value for the public, promotes optimal competition, and protects the unique environment of the Dead Sea region for future generations,” he said.
Uncategorized
Israel Says It Received Body From Hamas, Indicates Rafah Crossing to Open Soon to Let Gazans Cross Into Egypt
People hold images of dead hostages Ran Gvili and Sudthisak Rinthalak, whose bodies haven’t been returned yet, as Israelis attend a rally calling for the immediate return of the remains of all hostages held in Gaza, more than two years after the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, at the Hostages Square in Tel Aviv, Israel, Nov. 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Nir Elias
Israel received a body that the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas said was one of the last two deceased hostages in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, as Israel said it would allow Gaza’s gateway to Egypt to open once all hostages were returned.
A body has been transferred by the Red Cross to the Israeli military and will undergo forensic identification, a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office said.
Hamas also handed over remains on Tuesday, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office later said were not of any hostage.
The handover of the last hostages’ bodies in Gaza would complete a key condition of the initial part of US President Donald Trump’s plan to end the two-year Gaza war, which also provides for the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt to open in both directions.
Israel has kept the crossing shut since the ceasefire came into effect in October, saying that Hamas must abide by the agreement to return all hostages still in Gaza, living and deceased.
“The crossing will be opened both ways when all of our hostages have been returned,” Israeli government spokesperson Shosh Bedrosian told reporters.
Since the fragile truce started, Hamas has returned all 20 living hostages and 26 bodies in exchange for around 2,000 Palestinian detainees and convicted prisoners, but two more deceased captives – an Israeli police officer and a Thai agricultural worker – are still in Gaza.
ISRAEL SAYS PREVIOUS ‘FINDINGS’ NOT LINKED TO HOSTAGES
The armed wing of the Hamas-allied Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group, the Al Quds Brigades, said it had found a hostage body after conducting a search in northern Gaza, along with a team from the Red Cross.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad said they had handed over the body to the Red Cross late on Wednesday afternoon. The groups did not say which of the two remaining deceased hostages they believed it to be.
The two are Israeli police officer Ran Gvili and Thai national Sudthisak Rinthalak, both kidnapped during Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel that triggered two years of devastating war in Gaza.
OPENING OF CROSSING COULD ALLOW OUT THOSE NEEDING TREATMENT
COGAT, the Israeli military arm that oversees humanitarian matters, said the Rafah crossing would be opened in the coming days to allow Palestinians to cross into Egypt.
The decision to open the crossing for those seeking to leave Gaza was made in “full coordination” with those that have mediated between Israel and Hamas during the war, Bedrosian said.
Egypt, along with Qatar and the US, has acted as a mediator.
COGAT said it would be opened under the supervision of a European Union mission – a similar mechanism to that employed during a previous Gaza ceasefire agreed in January 2025.
Before the war, the Rafah crossing was a key entry point for aid into the territory, as well as weapons smuggling for Hamas. It has been mostly closed throughout the conflict.
At least 16,500 patients in Gaza require medical care outside of the enclave, according to the United Nations. Some Gazans have managed to leave for medical treatment abroad through Israel.
Violence has tailed off since the Oct. 10 ceasefire but Israel has continued to strike Gaza and conduct demolitions against what it says is Hamas infrastructure. Hamas and Israel have traded blame for violating the US-backed agreement.