Uncategorized
There’s a vicious antisemitic precedent for Trump’s demonization of Renée Nicole Good
There’s no reason to think that Renée Nicole Good — the woman shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis earlier this month — may have had ties to Jewish billionaire philanthropist George Soros.
Yet President Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly looking into establishing such a connection. And we know why. To understand, all we need to do is look at what happened in Hungary, Soros’ homeland, starting in 2015.
Before that year, conspiracy theories about Soros, the billionaire founder of the Open Society Foundations, had percolated around Central and Eastern Europe for decades. Soros was, after all, rich, famous, and Jewish, invested in both global finance and liberal philanthropy. It was almost too easy to allege that he had manipulated this or that election; that he was using nonprofits to establish a system of unelected international control; or even that he was the recipient of drug money.
But it was after a so-called “migration crisis” that hit Europe in 2015 that the conspiracy theories became something else entirely.
That year, Soros published an essay suggesting a radical rebuilding of the European Union’s asylum system. His ideas, which involved the EU accepting “at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future,” were presented by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s far-right Hungarian government as the “Soros plan” in a 2017 questionnaire, a “national consultation” to allow people to “have their say” about Soros’s proposal.
I do not believe that Orbán and company actually wanted to know what Hungarians thought of Soros’ opinion piece. Instead, I think they wanted to inflame a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, with the side benefit of turning Soros into not just a scapegoat, but a figure seen as trying to transform everything that everyday Hungarians loved about their country.
In 2018, the Hungarian government came out with “Stop Soros” legislation, a series of laws that criminalized helping those trying to claim asylum. At the time, then-Interior Minister Sandor Pinter said the government wanted to use the “Stop Soros” campaign “to stop Hungary from becoming a country of immigrants.”
Similar attacks, alleging that Soros and his “empire” were trying to “organize” migration and get rid of Christians and conservatives, have continued for years.
Antisemitic conspiracy theories about immigration suggest that people with no real loyalty to any country — a version of the old antisemitic trope of “disloyal Jews” — are trying to use an influx of outsiders to take over a nation. And if politicians can get supporters to believe that, then they can use it to justify anything and everything.
Which is why it was so useful for Hungary’s government to make Soros, who has never held elected office and was not in a position to write Hungarian policy, the face of their campaign for an immigration crackdown. Once authorities convinced the populace that disloyal Jewish elites were trying to undermine their country by flooding it with migrants, what kinds of illiberal crackdowns wouldn’t that populace allow in their theoretical defense?
Generally speaking, conspiracy theories about Soros work because they allow politicians to fight the idea of an enemy — cosmopolitan, anti-national, elite and elitist — instead of dealing with the complexities of reality. And they work because antisemitism has come to be so inherent to a certain kind of cultural consciousness that politicians can take advantage of antisemitic word associations without ever saying “Jew.”
Centering antisemitic conspiracies around immigration specifically changes the stakes. It heightens the differences between “us” and “them.” It’s “us,” the true nationals, versus “them,” those who are not even from our nation and wish to corrode it. It becomes existential.
In other words: The potent mixture of antisemitism and anti-immigrant sentiment can persuade people to accept authoritarianism.
Trump appears to have studied this playbook well.
To much of Trump’s base, as to much of Orbán’s, it’s become natural to believe, or at least to assert, that individuals with no real loyalty to any nation are trying to degrade western countries from within.
We have seen that truth unfold in Minneapolis, in the protest-filled days since Good was killed. Some Republicans have alleged that those taking to the streets in protest are paid agitators; the implication, always, is that they are there to serve the agenda of some shadowy force intent on destabilizing society. The New York Post has pointed out that one NGO involved in protests in Minneapolis has previously received money from Soros’s Open Society Foundations, as if to suggest that Soros is that shadowy force. (To be clear, again, there is no evidence to support the assertion that protesters are out on the streets because Soros is paying them.)
The idea is that people are protesting not because they don’t want masked agents terrorizing their communities, or because they’re outraged that a woman was shot in the face and killed. That explanation doesn’t work for a government that wants to expand its campaign of aggression. Instead, these commentators want us to think that the only conceivable explanation for the protests is that they were paid for by someone with malicious ulterior motives.
We’ve seen Trump frame Soros as such a figure before. In 2018, for instance, Trump mused that perhaps Soros was responsible for a migrant caravan that had become a focus of right-wing fear and ire. And Trump has previously also claimed that Soros, through his philanthropic work, is seeking to undermine and undercut the United States, reportedly going so far as to push prosecutors to investigate Open Society Foundations, including, possibly, for terrorism.
This is the same combination — antisemitism and xenophobia; villainizing immigrants and attacking those who would help them — that proved so potent in Hungary. We don’t need to wonder what’s happening here. We know. We know what those in power are doing and we know why they’re doing it. The question that remains: What can we do in response?
The post There’s a vicious antisemitic precedent for Trump’s demonization of Renée Nicole Good appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
6 Jewish takeaways from the midterm elections
(JTA) — The sheer size and geographic scope of the Republican wipeout Tuesday makes it hard to read anything definitive into the results beyond a nationwide repudiation of President Donald Trump (and his candidate selections). But whether or not any other factors were at play in the GOP bloodbath, the fallout will have a range of reverberations. Here are 6 takeaways that point to what comes next.
1. A significantly weakened Donald Trump doesn’t bode well for Netanyahu
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump has been a longshot bet that keeps on paying off. It’s hard to overstate how significant Trump’s improbable wins in 2016 and 2024 were in bolstering Netanyahu’s domestic standing and giving him space to advance his regional agenda. Trump also served as a security blanket, leaving Netanyahu and his allies with a sense for many years that they need not worry too much about skyrocketing Democratic and international anger with Israel.
In fact, there was even a hope in Bibi world that The Donald’s support could save Netanyahu from political defeat at home (and, to be fair, his 11th-hour endorsement may have). Whether Netanyahu holds on or chief rival Gadi Eisenkot succeeds in replacing him, Israel is entering uncharted territory. There is little chance that the combination of a weakened Trump and an emboldened Democratic Congress produces similar levels of support for aggressive action against Iran and its proxies, and other policies that a wide spectrum of Israelis see as crucial to their security.
2. Jeffries and Schumer have a massive headache coming their way
With Tuesday night’s Democratic wave, Hakeem Jeffries is on track to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chuck Schumer will likely get a second shot as U.S. Senate Majority Leader. These New Yorkers have longstanding ties to the pro-Israel community and are among their party’s strongest Israel supporters – putting them at odds with the growing number of congressional Democrats who want their party to take a much harder line against Israel. It won’t be long before members in each caucus are demanding concrete action, including meaningful limits on U.S. military sales.
Both Democratic leaders have ratcheted up their criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government in the wake of its war on Hamas in Gaza, but they have ultimately voted against various legislative attempts to punish Israel. This past April, Schumer was one of only seven Senate Democrats to vote against a pair of resolutions that together would have blocked the sale of D-9 bulldozers, widely used in military operations, and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel. In July, Jeffries voted against ending U.S. military aid to Israel, but the measure was supported by almost half of the Democratic caucus. As leaders of their respective chambers, Jeffries and Schumer will likely face immense pressure for more such votes and face much tougher scrutiny from the party base over continued support for Israel.
3. The impact of the anti-Israel vote was diluted
On the other hand, the massive Democratic victory dilutes the power of the anti-Israel lawmakers in Congress. Their numbers will grow, causing problems for party leaders trying to keep anti-Israel measures off the agenda. But they will remain a relatively small subset within a much larger Democratic majority that includes many moderates and Israel supporters.
Not only will anti-Israel members have less ability to hold Congress hostage, the overall issue of Israel loses some of its potency when the broader political winds indicate that all Democrats were boosted.
4. John Fetterman just lost his juice
Just as the sizable Democratic House majority makes Jeffries less dependent on anti-Israel lawmakers in his caucus, the next Senate Majority Leader won’t need to rely on Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman. For years, Fetterman has been driving fellow Democrats crazy with his cozying up to Republicans, with progressives especially upset over his die-hard support for Israel. Fetterman has even said that the one thing that could cause him to leave the Democratic Senate caucus would be his party turning decisively against Israel.
Had things broken differently, with Democrats grabbing a narrow 51-49 majority in the chamber, Fetterman’s influence would have been hypercharged. Now, not so much. The Democrats no longer need him to keep control of the chamber. So Schumer, should he regain the majority leader role, will have to worry much less about keeping the party’s top pro-Israel cheerleader happy. In 2028, he’ll be up for reelection and highly unlikely to survive the Democratic primary.
5. AIPAC has not found a formula for success
A few years back, the leading pro-Israel lobby decided the best way to counter the initial anti-Israel rumblings in Congress was to jump deep into the campaign fundraising business. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, the number of Israel critics in Congress – especially on the Democratic side of the aisle – has grown, with a fresh batch on the way. Moreover, in many races, anti-Israel candidates and AIPAC critics managed to turn the lobby’s backing into a liability.
Meanwhile, Trump’s seemingly impromptu announcement Tuesday that his administration would end aid to Israel after this year suggests that Republican backing for such support is dropping alongside Democrats’. And Tuesday’s results suggest AIPAC’s strong support for the U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran is out of step with the American public and many incoming lawmakers.
All of this indicates that AIPAC has yet to figure out how to manage the anti-Israel turn sweeping through American politics.
6. It was a great night for Jewish presidential hopefuls
U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff says he isn’t running for president in 2028. But that won’t stop the speculation from skyrocketing after his impressive reelection in Georgia – Georgia?! – with nearly 60% of the vote. More importantly, he probably just grabbed frontrunner status in the race to become America’s first Jewish president. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also registered a similarly sized reelection victory in a state that Trump won just two years ago, but Ossoff – a fierce Trump antagonist and, increasingly, a critic of Israel’s military actions – cemented his rock star status among Democrats this cycle and has demonstrated an ability to bridge the gap between younger progressives and more traditional liberals.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also cruised to reelection. Meanwhile in Michigan, moderate Elissa Slotkin – another senator and likely presidential hopeful (of course, which senator isn’t a presidential hopeful?) – may have at least propped open the door to some progressive support by campaigning hard for Abdul El-Sayed. All four have been highly critical of Netanyahu, with both Ossoff and Slotkin joining most of their fellow Democratic senators in voting in April for a curb on various weapons sales. Both senators have declined to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post 6 Jewish takeaways from the midterm elections appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
El-Sayed declares victory in Michigan Senate race that left many Jews uneasy
(JTA) — DETROIT – Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has declared victory in the hotly contested race for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat, capping a campaign that has prompted deep anxieties among Jews in the state and beyond.
With 88% of the ballots counted at around 2:27 a.m. ET, The Associated Press called the race for El-Sayed, who had 52% of the vote compared with 46% for his Republican rival, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers.”
In his acceptance speech, El-Sayed thanked supporters whom he said had welcomed him into “your homes, your churches, your synagogues.”
He also referenced his ardently pro-Palestinian views, saying, “They try to call you hateful if you believe that Palestinian kids should get to grow up in the land of their forefathers without being martyred by our tax dollars… We don’t want our money to be sent to do apartheid or genocidal war.”
During his victory speech, chants of “Free Palestine” were heard throughout the crowd. Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian Columbia University activist who was detained by the Trump administration, was in attendance.
The race had been viewed as crucial to Democrats’ hopes of retaking the chamber. But for many of Michigan’s estimated 105,000 Jewish voters, the campaign was defined instead by El-Sayed’s tumultuous relationship to the community.
That animosity extended beyond the Democrat’s fierce criticism of Israel to encompass his statements about attacks targeting the state’s Jewish community and his early campaigning with streamer Hasan Piker, who has made several controversial comments about Jewish voters.
His uncompromising stances on Israel have also made him a target among pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, which has spent heavily against him in both the primary and general election. AIPAC’s rare entry into a general election race was in support of Rogers.
One of El-Sayed’s positions on Israel — to end all U.S. military aid — was once thought a far-left pipe dream. But that has changed. On Election Day morning, Trump announced that, under his watch, nearly $4 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel would wind down by the end of the year. Trump said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in agreement with the need to end aid and deny Democratic critics a point of attack.
El-Sayed’s campaign has galvanized young voters and a range of other constituencies, and he pulled ahead in the polls in the race’s final stretch. But his questioning of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state and whether it or Iran posed a greater threat to the United States, as well as his prior associations with figures such as Hasan Piker, the streamer who has spread extreme rhetoric about American Jews, have sparked concern among Jewish Michiganders.
So, too, did comments the candidate made following the March terror attack on Temple Israel, a major synagogue in the state, in which El-Sayed appeared to link the attack to Israel’s war in Lebanon after reports that the attacker lost family in an Israeli strike. Hostile behavior from some of El-Sayed’s supporters toward pro-Israel Democrats, most prominently on display at the state party’s spring convention, has also alarmed Jews. El-Sayed has pledged to stand up to antisemitism.
Some Jews who had long considered themselves Democrats, including several local Jewish leaders, have cited such controversies in pledging to vote for Rogers. In some Michigan Jewish neighborhoods, yard signs proclaim that a vote for Rogers is a vote “against antisemitism.”
The post El-Sayed declares victory in Michigan Senate race that left many Jews uneasy appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Moskowitz wins Florida seat in race between two pro-Israel candidates
(JTA) — Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz beat Republican Scott Singer, the former mayor of Boca Raton, in a battle between two staunchly pro-Israel politicians in a redrawn district.
The redrawn district covers a stretch of Florida shoreline north of Miami and includes large Jewish communities in areas including Boca and Fort Lauderdale, and is seen as leaning slightly Democratic.
Moskowitz, who was endorsed by the lobbying group AIPAC, has touted himself as “the most pro-Israel Jewish Democrat in Congress.” Singer, meanwhile, was endorsed by President Donald Trump and the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Moskowitz has said there is an “ostracizing” associated with being staunchly pro-Israel in a Democratic Party that is increasingly including anti-Zionist voices. Singer seized on that sentiment, saying during a synagogue candidates’ forum that Moskowitz will be drowned out by the Democrats’ anti-Israel wing if he is reelected.
The candidates themselves have largely been aligned on the issue of Israel. Both have condemned accusations that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. They each oppose any effort to condition or cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. Both supported Israel’s strikes on Iranian facilities in 2025, though Moskowitz has since called for the U.S. to end its war with Iran, whereas Singer said during a forum that the U.S. needs “to ensure victory here.”
Both candidates have also emphasized combating antisemitism in their campaigns, and say they would push to expand the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to increase funding for security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other institutions. They also are both in favor of codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into federal law; critics say the definition wrongly lumps in some criticism of Israel.
In a campaign ad targeting antisemitism, Moskowitz pulled from the story of his family, some of whom — including his great-grandparents — were killed in Auschwitz during the Holocaust.
“In every generation, they rise against us,” Moskowitz said in the ad.
The post Moskowitz wins Florida seat in race between two pro-Israel candidates appeared first on The Forward.
