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
For the Sake of the US-Crafted Ceasefire in Gaza, Israel Should Fortify the Yellow Line Immediately
A Red Cross vehicle, escorted by a van driven by a Hamas terrorist, moves in an area within the so-called “yellow line” to which Israeli troops withdrew under the ceasefire, as Hamas says it continues to search for the bodies of deceased hostages seized during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, in Gaza City, Nov. 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alk
The Gaza ceasefire buckled last weekend. A Palestinian terrorist crossed the “Yellow Line” — which demarcates Israeli-held Gaza from territory held by Hamas — and fired at Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops from a humanitarian access road.
Israel eliminated five senior Hamas figures in response, and the strikes were fully backed by the United States. The violence highlighted a key vulnerability for Israel: its exposed positions along Gaza’s Yellow Line.
To minimize the violence — and the chance of the ceasefire blowing up at the hands of Hamas terrorists — Israel needs to provide its soldiers with protection in the form of a strong barrier along that line.
The line was designed to serve as a temporary withdrawal point for the IDF, while Hamas released all remaining living and deceased hostages, according to President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan. The terrorist group still holds the remains of one hostage, weeks after the 72-hour deadline set in the ceasefire terms.
On November 22, Qatar urged the “full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza” — but Israel is not required to do so until Hamas has taken further steps toward peace, including disarming. An International Stabilization Force (ISF) is also supposed to be ready to take Israel’s place in Gaza, operating under a temporary Board of Peace, which would govern the Strip.
Instead, Hamas rejected the UN-endorsed plan.
In a statement on November 17, the terrorist group claimed that “assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip … strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of [Israel].”
Hamas has also made it clear that the group likely will not agree to full disarmament, as stipulated by the Trump administration’s plan.
Instances of Palestinian terrorists firing across the Yellow Line at IDF troops have become a near-daily occurrence since the ceasefire’s inception on October 10. Palestinians have violated Phase One of the truce at least 32 times, according to IDF data, with a majority of those violations occurring when militants cross into Israeli-controlled areas east of the Yellow Line.
Despite some concerns about the potential for a permanent IDF presence in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel wants to “pass [Gaza] to a civilian governance that is not Hamas,” and doesn’t seek to “keep” Gaza long term.
For now, the situation leaves the IDF encamped in elevated positions along the Yellow Line. The border between those positions and the hornet’s nest of Hamas’ remaining forces in Gaza is marked with yellow cement blocks, while the IDF sits several hundred yards back from the line in positions dotted with large sand berms, supported by tanks and some electrical and water infrastructure. This is not like the high-tech border “Iron Wall” that separated Israel and Gaza before the October 7, 2023, attacks. Of course, even that was easily breached. But without something similar, the region is just one successful Hamas assault away from a return to war.
For the sake of the ceasefire, especially since Hamas continues to violate its terms, Israel should strengthen the Yellow Line: not to establish a permanent presence, but to provide cover for its troops in the near term, the ISF’s troops in the medium-to-long term, and to avoid the ceasefire’s collapse.
Israel’s reinforced border with Lebanon could serve as an example. The IDF could easily install concrete barriers along the Israeli side of the Yellow Line to reduce terrorist infiltration, while establishing checkpoints to lower troop exposure and allow Gazan residents to return to rebuilt homes in the future, in line with the Trump administration’s reconstruction plan for the areas of the enclave not under Hamas control.
The border could also isolate Hamas, piling diplomatic pressure on the terror group from mediators like Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, to comply with the ceasefire to get Israel out of Gaza as soon as possible, per Doha’s demands. The border would protect troops from other nations involved in a future ISF, should it materialize. These nations have made it clear that they don’t want to volunteer soldiers to fight in armed engagements with Palestinians, and a fortified border may provide the necessary solution.
Aaron Goren is a research analyst and editor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
Uncategorized
Hostage’s remains returned to Israel, as Trump says Gaza ceasefire’s next phase is ‘going to happen pretty soon’
(JTA) — Israel has identified the remains handed over Wednesday by Hamas as belonging to Sudthisak Rinthalak, a Thai agricultural worker murdered on Oct. 7, 2023.
Rinthalak had been working in Israel for years, sending money home to his family in Thailand, but had only been at Kibbutz Beeri for a few months on Oct. 7, when it became one of the hardest-hit communities during the Hamas massacre, with about 100 residents killed.
The release means there is just one Israeli hostage remaining in Gaza of the roughly 250 taken on Oct. 7: Ran Gvili, a police officer killed while defending Kibbutz Alumim.
Gvili’s family and the Hostages and Missing Families Forum has announced that the mass Saturday night demonstrations on behalf of the hostages, which began soon after Oct. 7, would shift to smaller gatherings on Friday afternoons.
The changes come as pressure mounts for Israel and Hamas to move into the second phase of the ceasefire plan that U.S. President Donald Trump brokered in October. Under the terms of the ceasefire, all living and dead hostages would be released before a second phase focused on Gaza’s postwar governance would be negotiated.
Trump insisted on Wednesday that the next phase was imminent, even as skirmishes continue in Gaza. Israel recently killed two children who crossed the “yellow line” separating Israel- and Hamas-controlled portions of the enclave, while gunmen emerging from the network of tunnels built by Hamas attacked and severely wounded Israeli soldiers in Rafah on Wednesday.
“Phase two is moving along. It’s going to happen pretty soon,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday, even as he acknowledged that Israel’s bombing response to the attack on the soldiers represented “a problem.”
Still, he said, “We have peace in the Middle East. People don’t realize it.”
Both Israel and Hamas would lose authority in Gaza during the next phase of Trump’s plan, which would establish a “Board of Peace” helmed by Trump to make decisions about Gaza’s future. It is expected that the Palestinian Authority will play a role in the board, which Israeli officials have said they oppose, and Hamas will face renewed pressure to disarm, which it does not want to do.
In a sign of how contentious each development is likely to be, Israel announced on Wednesday that it would reopen the Rafah crossing with Egypt — but only to Gazans leaving the enclave. Egypt, meanwhile, said it would not open the crossing on its side unless Israel accepts Gazans who seek to return.
The post Hostage’s remains returned to Israel, as Trump says Gaza ceasefire’s next phase is ‘going to happen pretty soon’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
NYC synagogue protest leads to a new bill, and a rally by Jewish groups outside Park East shul
(JTA) — A demonstration outside Park East Synagogue two weeks ago, during which protesters shouted chants like “Death to the IDF” and “Globalize the Intifada,” has spurred major Jewish groups and lawmakers into action.
A coalition of Jewish groups are organizing a solidarity gathering on Manhattan’s Upper East Side Thursday night, outside the same synagogue where pro-Palestinian groups protested an event promoting immigration to Israel — a scene that NYPD commissioner Jessica Tisch later referred to as “turmoil.”
The rally “will bring our community together in that same sacred space to celebrate and defend our community’s values and support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland,” according to a press release from UJA-Federation of New York.
UJA is partnering on the rally with Park East Synagogue itself, as well as the Jewish Community Relations Council, the New York Board of Rabbis, and local branches of the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.
They’ve also listed dozens of Jewish organizations, schools and congregations as partners. Schools and synagogues around the city were sharing information with families about how to commute to the rally.
The gathering will feature live performances, community leaders and elected officials, according to UJA’s release, though it did not specify who would be present.
The rally is set to take place on the heels of newly introduced legislation, brought forward on Wednesday by a pair of Jewish lawmakers — Assembly member Micah Lasher and State Sen. Sam Sutton — that proposes banning protests within 25 feet of houses of worship.
“New York must always be a place where people can both exercise free speech and express their religious identity without fear or intimidation, and that balance broke down outside Park East Synagogue,” said Micah Lasher, who is running for Congress in New York’s 12th district, which includes Park East.
The bill was co-sponsored by fellow Jewish lawmakers Nily Rozic, a Democratic Assembly member, and Sen. Liz Krueger, who endorsed mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in the general election.
Many Jewish groups were disappointed with the initial response to the incident by Mamdani’s spokesperson, who said that while Mamdani would “discourage the language used” at the protest, “these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.” The second clause was a reference to complaints that the synagogue event’s organizers facilitate immigration to the West Bank, which most countries consider illegally occupied by Israel under international law.
Critics said Mamdani’s statement drew an unfair comparison between menacing protesters and a synagogue exercising its commitment to Jewish communities in what the ADL referred to as their “ancestral homeland,” and that the protest made no distinction between immigration to Israel and the West Bank.
Rabbi Marc Schneier, who has been a harsh critic of Mamdani and is the son of Park East’s senior rabbi, said on WABC that he’s had multiple phone calls with the mayor-elect about legislation like the bill proposed by Lasher and Sutton.
Schneier said Mamdani was receptive to the idea during their discussions, and a Mamdani spokesperson told The New York Times that the mayor-elect “expressed his interest in hearing more details about the Schneier pitch.”
Jewish leaders say they are looking to Thursday as an opportunity to counter the rhetoric used outside Park East.
Chaim Steinmetz, a critic of Mamdani and the senior rabbi of a different Orthodox synagogue on the Upper East Side, shared a post about Thursday’s rally, calling it an opportunity to “stand up as proud Jews.”
“And now, with a new city administration about to take office, it is more important than ever that we bring our pride into the streets,” he wrote.
The post NYC synagogue protest leads to a new bill, and a rally by Jewish groups outside Park East shul appeared first on The Forward.