Uncategorized
These are the right-wing extremists we’re watching out for in 2026
There was a cultural inversion in 2025. As Trump took over the country, “woke” concerns were eliminated from major companies’ priorities — topics like transgender rights became taboo, and social media companies eliminated fact-checking. Diversity went from being a good thing to a bad word overnight, and shitposting and trolling turned into the lingua franca of not only the government but of all American society; the Department of Homeland Security took to posting joking videos of ICE raids and even the assassin who shot Charlie Kirk allegedly carved memes into his bullets.
In short, the internet broke containment. Discourse that once remained quarantined in extremist corners of forums like 4chan, places the average person never visited, roared into the mainstream. Hatred and conspiracy theories that were once far too niche and too extreme to make it out of their dark corners were suddenly being imbibed by millions and normalized.
This change has been led, and capitalized on, by far-right live-streamers, podcasters and other online creators. These influencers have become some of the main arbiters of American thought, upending the existing political schema of right and left with the mix of ideologies and conspiracy theories they espouse. They largely appeal to disillusioned young men, an audience Trump courted heavily, and won by a large margin, in 2024.
The impact has been huge, particularly on younger generations who get most of their news and information online. In one recent roundtable discussion of Gen Z conservatives, run by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative thinktank, participants disagreed on questions of universal healthcare, abortion and other former mainstay issues of the American right. But many of them agreed that there were things to like about Hitler, and reasons to fear Jews.
An important thing to note is that many of the players are part of what one might call the Nick Fuentes Extended Universe; many operate in a shared ecosystem, doing videos together and riding each other’s coattails to a larger audience. It’s a type of clout-chasing that pushes the the entire online ecosystem toward antisemitism, misogyny and other forms of hate as a tried-and-true path to virality.
These are some of the online extremists we’ll be keeping an eye on this year.
Nick Fuentes: A neo-Nazi king of extremists
Last year, Fuentes, the avowedly antisemitic 27-year-old streaming host, went from being a pariah on the fringes of the right to the face of its new flank, and his army of conspiratorial followers, known as “groypers,” became the Republican Party’s most-desired demographic.
While Fuentes was deplatformed from Twitter, YouTube and most mainstream platforms in 2020 — thanks to his open endorsement of racism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, misogyny and other hateful views on his streamed talk show, America First — Elon Musk returned his account to X in 2024. But the real key to Fuentes’ rise was the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Groypers had long shown up to events run by Kirk’s Turning Point USA events as part of what they called “groyper war.” Fuentes and his followers maintained that the young conservative movement headed by Kirk epitomized everything wrong with the party, namely that Kirk was too friendly to Israel and to people of color. Though Kirk was far from a moderate, the two represented opposing visions of the American right for their audiences of largely disillusioned young men.
When Kirk was killed, many experts who tracked the extreme fringes of the right suspected the shooter might have been a groyper. Though that seems not to have been the case, this significantly elevated the profile of Fuentes, who went on Tucker Carlson’s show and ranted about the problem of “organized Jewry in America.” Despite strong criticism from Republicans like Ted Cruz, Carlson defended the interview, as did Trump — “You can’t tell him who to interview,” he said — and Kevin Roberts, the head of the conservative Heritage Foundation, who called Carlson’s critics “the globalist class.”
Fuentes’ increased influence on the mainstream discourse of the right could be seen clearly in this year’s Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest conference, which took place after Kirk’s death. Fuentes fans and those influenced by his thought — particularly his harsh criticism of Israel — made up much of the audience, even though many also came to honor Kirk.
Key to Fuentes’ appeal is his ironic, trolling tone, which gives him plausible deniability for many of his more extreme statements; he has, for example, denied being a white nationalist, despite making statements like “The rootless transnational elite knows that a tidal wave of white identity is coming. And they know that once the word gets out, they will not be able to stop us. The fire rises!”
This plausible deniability is core to Fuentes’ strategy. “We have got to be on the right, dragging these people kicking and screaming into the future,” he said on America First in 2021. “If we can drag the furthest part of the right further to the right, and we can drag the center further to the right, and we can drag the left further to the right,” he continued, “then we’re winning.”
Candace Owens: A conspiracy theorist with reach
Candace Owens sounds like a crank. Once an employee of The Daily Wire, conservative Jewish pundit Ben Shapiro’s outlet, Owens was ousted in 2024 due to her antisemitism and general conspiratorial thinking, which has included the assertion that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick and that dinosaurs are “fake and gay.”
This may make her appear unthreatening; who could take that seriously? But her departure from The Daily Wire didn’t slow her down at all; she not only continued to espouse antisemitic conspiracy theories, but went deeper.
In the past few years, the podcaster regularly spread conspiracies about the Frankists, a little-known and long-defunct — though not according to Owens — group of Jewish apostates who supposedly control the government and media.
As was the case with Fuentes, Owens’ influence was buoyed by Charlie Kirk’s murder; she spread conspiracy theories that Israel, along with Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron and Egypt plotted the killing. No matter how absurd these ideas seemed, they gained so much traction that Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, met with Owens in December to attempt to quash these theories. She failed.
Owens’ conspiracy theories run the gamut from relatively random and harmless — her suspicion of France, for example — to virulently antisemitic; she has blamed “Zionists” for everything, including the Trump administration’s recent capture of Nicolas Maduro, and Kirk’s murder, and has also made more nebulous claims of Jewish control.
The rise in anti-Israel sentiment and increased acceptance of antisemitism on the right — JD Vance dismissed uproar over a leaked antisemitic group chat between leaders of the Young Republicans as “pearl-clutching” — has created fertile ground for Owens. With nearly 6 million followers on her YouTube podcast, and several million views on many of her individual videos, the wackiness of many of her ideas only serves to push the boundaries of what ideas enter the discourse on the far-right.
Tucker Carlson: An old-school pundit courting the new right
Tucker Carlson is not exactly a new figure to watch — his show was once a centerpiece of rightwing discourse. But after he left Fox in 2023, he fell temporarily into comparative obscurity. He began to stream his own show on X, but, for a time, ceased generating major headlines.
While he was lying relatively low, he took on a new persona: He revamped his signature look, exchanging his bowtie for a folksier checkered shirt and streaming from a wood-paneled cabin, and began sharing conspiratorial ideas about 9/11 and chemtrails, and offering increasingly harsh criticism of Israel’s influence over the American government that sometimes edges into antisemitic conspiracies.
When Carlson interviewed Fuentes in fall of 2025, he roared back into the discourse as a sort of kingmaker on the right. His outreach to Fuentes symbolically meshed the old guard with the new right’s younger and more extreme audience.
He continues to heavily critique the establishment Republican party, creating fractures that the Fuentes crowd can take advantage of to continue to shift the party’s ideology.
Adin Ross: Gaming streamer with a side of antisemitism
Ross made his name through gaming and video game commentary — largely Grand Theft Auto — on Twitch. He has been repeatedly banned from the platform for hateful and antisemitic comments.
The world of gaming streamers is often dismissed by those who aren’t in it. After all, video game expertise does not have any obvious relationship with news or politics. But many of these influencers talk as they game, and followers come to them not only to watch them play, but also to hear these defacto pundits’ opinions. Acknowledging the power of these streamers on the mainstream right, Trump made a 2024 campaign appearance on Ross’ show, where the streamer gifted him a Tesla Cybertruck.
Despite the fact that Ross is Jewish, he has allowed hateful rhetoric in his comments and has made similar comments himself, regularly rubbing his hands together to imitate the stereotype of greedy Jews. He has repeatedly hosted Fuentes on his show, as well as a slew of other figures who have made antisemitic comments that Ross has either laughed at or let go. He also regularly makes homophobic and misogynistic remarks. In the rapid-fire comments on his streams, his viewers reflect these ideas back at him, using the term “gay” as a slur and sending memes of the “happy merchant,” an antisemitic caricature of a hook-nosed, Orthodox Jewish man rubbing his hands together.
Ross is also kind of an idiot; famously, after someone in his chat called him a fascist three years ago, he looked up the definition while live streaming and was unable to pronounce it, or many of the words in the definition — including “authoritarian” and “ultra-nationalist.” Nor had he heard of the examples of fascists given, such as Mussolini. Nevertheless, Ross has 7 million followers on Twitch and nearly another 2 million on Kick, another streaming platform.
Manosphere podcasts: A broad web of influence
The so-called manosphere of podcasts is nothing new; it includes massively popular creators like Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Andrew Tate who run some of the most-watched video podcasts around. They sit around microphones speaking seemingly off the cuff for hours-long shows, and have massive appeal among young men, who turn to them for advice on dating and finances, and look to them as models of masculinity.
While Tate is overtly toxic, calling himself a misogynist, encouraging viewers to assault their girlfriends as well as praising Hitler and telling his followers to “bring back” the Nazi salute, many of these podcasters are less open about their extremist views.
Some, particularly Rogan and Von, take a stance of “just asking questions,” bringing on guests with extremist ideas such as Holocaust denial, and legitimizing those positions by engaging with them seriously.
Even if these podcasters are not overtly antisemitic, racist or misogynist, or might not personally share the views of their guests, their popularity means new audiences get exposed to ideas like Holocaust denial, making them a sort of gateway drug to extremism. As racism and antisemitism become more acceptable on the right, it’s likely these podcasters will welcome increasingly extremist guests than they already do, bringing their ideas to their massive audiences.
Joel Webbon: Christian nationalist internet pastor
Joel Webbon, a Christian nationalist podcaster and influencer who runs Right Response Ministries, is still slightly niche, but his ideology is on the rise.
His audience is largely devout Christians, but it’s still sizable, with about 150,000 followers on YouTube; he is one of what some many, including myself, have termed the TheoBros, conservative Christian nationalists who combine theology with the sort of life advice on masculinity, women and fitness that made Andrew Tate and Theo Von famous. Webbon’s tone of theological expertise gives him extra influence among young Christian men, who turn to him as something of a religious mentor.
Webbon has recently launched a new channel, New Christian Right Studios or NXR, which he calls “theology in practice” — Christianity applied to politics and society. Webbon has always advocated for ultra-conservative Christian political ideas, such as a Christian government and removing women’s right to vote. But the rebrand is a sign that he intends to engage more in targeted political advocacy, aiming for a larger audience than just the theology obsessives, and hoping to draw in the kind of red-pilled, conspiratorial young men that Fuentes speaks to.
As part of the new mission, Webbon has turned toward open Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial and white nationalism — a step away from an older generation of Christian nationalist pastors who, while extreme, stayed clear of such overt antisemitism. His X account is full of allegations that Jews are “marked by subversion, deceit and greed,” opposition to interracial marriage, and statistics about the declining white population. He also released a book titled The Hyphenated Heresy: Judeo-Christianity, whose subject is solving the “Jewish question” within Christianity, and arguing that the church has moved too far toward Jewishness.
In the past year, Webbon has spoken with open admiration for Fuentes’ ability to connect with young men. And, at the beginning of 2026, he released a 10-part series of videos in which he talked to Fuentes about such topics as “The Inner Workings of ‘World Jewry.’” This crossover with Fuentes, who is a devout Catholic and advocate of Christian nationalism, will likely bring a whole new audience to Webbon, who is ready and waiting with warped biblical justifications for his antisemitism and misogyny.
Clavicular: An appearance-obsessed streamer with confused politics
Perhaps the oddest entry on this list, Clavicular is what is called a “looksmaxxer,” a type of influencer who believes that appearance is the most important thing in the world and the key to success. Clavicular, whose real name is Braden Peters, gives advice to young men hoping to get good jobs and attractive women. But looksmaxxing is not just a lifting routine; it involves routines like “mewing” — pressing your tongue to the roof of the mouth to supposedly improve your jawline — intensive plastic surgery and even taking meth to “leanmax” and get defined abs. This is all in pursuit of a look known online as the gigachad — based off of a meme of a white man with a sharp, square jawline, bulging muscles and a beard.
Despite the obvious absurdity of this subculture, the 19-year-old streamer is on the rise. Both YouTube titan Mr. Beast and internet journalist Taylor Lorenz have said he is likely to be the biggest streamer of 2026.
Clavicular has yet to openly espouse much political ideology. But the subtext of looksmaxxing is white supremacy; that’s part of the gigachad look. And Clavicular also did a chummy hours-long video with Fuentes, exposing his audience to the neo-Nazi and implying a friendliness to Fuentes’ antisemitic and misogynist ideology. In the video, Clavicular said he got into looksmaxxing after being interested in politics in high school under the theory that his good looks would aid his ability to influence people politically. In the same conversation, he said that “saving European culture” requires steroids and looksmaxxing, and modeled his social media strategy on Fuentes’ own.
It’s hard to say where Clavicular is heading. But just as the gaming streamers began to include extremist political ideas alongside their video games, it’s likely that Clavicular will turn to the same tried-and-true strategy to grow his own profile.
The post These are the right-wing extremists we’re watching out for in 2026 appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Years after a boycott fight, Ben & Jerry’s Israel debuts a flavor celebrating Israeli resilience
(JTA) — Ben & Jerry’s Israel operation has come up with a flavor that does not leave much to interpretation. Called “Milk and Honey,” a nod to the biblical description of the Land of Israel, its namesake ingredients are supplied by Israeli cows and bees and its chocolate fudge pieces come shaped like Stars of David.
The company, which split from its American counterpart after a contentious 2021 boycott fight, is billing the new pint as its “most Israeli flavor ever” and, on its website, as a “symbol of hope, rehabilitation, and positive action” after the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack.
Its ingredients and production come from southern Israeli communities most affected by the massacre and the war that followed. The company, based in the southern city of Kiryat Malachi, said it “felt a responsibility to take an active part in the region’s recovery process.”
The milk and cream come from the dairy in Kibbutz Alumim, one of the Gaza-border communities infiltrated by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023. The honey comes from the beehives of Kibbutz Yad Mordechai. The chocolate Stars of David are made by hand at the Korint factory in Beersheba, part of the Shkulo Tov social enterprise, which helps integrate people with disabilities into the workforce.
Even the wrapper is local: the pint is adorned with “Fields of Light,” a painting by Rivi Doron-Gerloy, a southern Israeli artist who was killed in a Miami car accident last year.
The flavor was developed in partnership with the Ayalim Association, a nonprofit that works to strengthen Israel’s periphery. The company said royalties from sales of the new flavor will go to Ayalim’s rehabilitation and educational initiatives in the south.
The Israeli and American Ben & Jerry’s operations are now completely separate, a split that followed one of the more improbable diplomatic dramas ever to involve ice cream. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s said it would stop selling in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying sales there were “inconsistent” with its values.
The move set off an uproar in Israel. President Isaac Herzog called the boycott a “new kind of terrorism,” while Benjamin Netanyahu, then opposition leader, retweeted the company’s announcement that it would stop selling in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” writing, “Now we Israelis know which ice cream NOT to buy,” alongside Israeli flag and flexed-bicep emojis.
The original founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, who no longer control the company but remain its best-known faces, also came under fire after the decision. In an interview, they were asked why the boycott logic did not extend to places such as Georgia and Texas, despite their opposition to those states’ voting rights and abortion laws.
“Why do you still sell ice cream in Georgia? Texas?” Axios reporter Alexi McCammond asked in a video that went viral on pro-Israel platforms.
Clearly stumped, Cohen shrugged his shoulders. “I don’t know,” he said, laughing. “You ask a really good question and I think I’d have to sit down and think about it for a bit.”
Unilever’s then-chief executive, Alan Jope, also appeared to suggest that Israel had become an inconveniently sticky scoop of activism. “There is plenty for Ben & Jerry’s to get their teeth into in their social justice mission without straying into geopolitics,” he reportedly said in a quarterly earnings review at the time.
The standoff ended, at least commercially, when Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s parent company, sold the Israeli business in 2022 to Avi Zinger, the longtime Israeli licensee and owner of American Quality Products. The sale was accompanied by a legal fight that was inflamed when Zinger told an Israeli news outlet that, once he took control of the company in Israel, he could rename the signature flavor “Chunky Monkey” to “Judea and Samaria,” the Hebrew term for the West Bank.
Under the ultimate deal, Ben & Jerry’s could continue to be sold throughout Israel and in Israeli settlements, under Hebrew and Arabic branding, while the Vermont-based company said it disagreed with the move and would no longer profit from Israeli sales.
The split left the Israeli operation in an unusual position: carrying one of the most recognizable American ice cream names, while openly defying the political stance associated with that name abroad.
But the corporate restructuring has not been enough to cleanse the palate for everyone. On social media, the new flavor drew curiosity and praise, but also lingering resentment from those who said the brand name still carried too much baggage, even under Israeli ownership.
“I really don’t care if it’s owned by someone other than Ben and Jerry in Israel. Those two clowns’ names are still associated with the brand. I wouldn’t spend a penny for this ice cream regardless. That brand is done,” one person wrote on Instagram.
“We’ve been eating Häagen-Dazs since October 7th,” another said.
Last year, Cohen announced that he planned to produce a “flavor for Palestine” independently after Unilever blocked Ben & Jerry’s from creating one, soliciting suggestions about what should accompany watermelon, a symbol of Palestinian solidarity, in his concoction.
“Milk and Honey” has come to market faster. So does the new flavor deliver a taste of the Holy Land?
One food influencer, who called the new flavor a “statement,” offered a less scriptural verdict on the taste, shrugging that it “tastes like vanilla with chocolate chips” — a conclusion echoed by others in Israeli food aficionado groups, who lamented that the honey was barely noticeable.
One commented, referring to dairy-free desserts made to comply with kosher laws prohibiting the mixing of milk and meat: “Not the tastiest thing I’ve ever eaten, but not as bad as a pareve dessert either.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Years after a boycott fight, Ben & Jerry’s Israel debuts a flavor celebrating Israeli resilience appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mamdani calls AIPAC ‘monsters’ in rally ahead of NY primaries
(JTA) — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday night accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of spending “millions in dark money” to ensure pro-Israel candidates win seats in tthe November midterms.
Mamdani made his remarks at a rally headlined by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at Kings Theater in Brooklyn ahead of Tuesday’s Democratic primaries for progressive congressional candidates. He called on the crowd to help elect Jewish former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, State Assembly member Claire Valdez and former Columbia encampment organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier.
In a fiery 30-minute speech, Mamdani took aim not just at AIPAC but also Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his handling of the war in Gaza. He claimed that “The monsters that we are up against, they take many different forms,” and then singled out AIPAC.
He described the major pro-Israel lobby as an organization “for whom the only thing more frightening than democracy being allowed to run its course is an end to genocide and Netanyahu’s wars.”
Mamdani continued by alleging that AIPAC moves “millions in dark money to accomplish a single goal, to preserve their power so that they can turn us against one another instead of our leaders turning towards the moral change we all know to be necessary.”
AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment about Mamdani’s remarks.
The lobby, whose endorsement was once heavily sought by politicians on both sides of the aisle, has increasingly come under fire for its campaign tactics. Pro-Israel Democrats are particularly struggling to hold onto seats as voters on the left increasingly turn against the Jewish state.
Sanders, for his part, doubled down on criticism of AIPAC when he took the stage. “The American people understand that a large part of our horrific foreign policy is impacted by AIPAC funding,” he said.
Turning to the local races, Mamdani voiced support for Valdez for her opposition to Israel. “When other Democrats chose to look the other way as Netanyahu committed war crimes, Claire didn’t just name the genocide,” he said. “She organized for a ceasefire.”
In a change of tone, Mamdani emphasized unity, including an appeal to Jewish voters.
“Whether you worship at shul, at a mosque, in a church, a gurdwara, a temple, or you don’t worship at all, we share a belief that our city deserves leaders who lead with hope and not fear,” the mayor said.
He added, “No matter where we live, how old we are, what train we take in the morning, or what bagel we order, we are New Yorkers and we want the same things,” including “a city that belongs to all of us.”
Reaction on social media was swift. One self-described mom from New York City posted on X of the rally and the Democratic Socialists of America there: “It’s pretty transparent and vile how Zohran Mamdani and the DSA are using ‘AIPAC’ as a euphemism for Jews, and how Brad Lander is going right along with it.”
Jewish writer Dovi Safier also criticized the comments, writing, “The mayor of the city with the world’s largest Jewish population is pushing conspiracy theories about ‘money men’ who ‘move millions in dark money’ to ‘turn us against one another’ — and calling them ‘monsters.’ Subtle.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Mamdani calls AIPAC ‘monsters’ in rally ahead of NY primaries appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish groups push back against Trump’s Iran deal — but more quietly so far than in 2015
(JTA) — A growing number of Jewish groups are pushing back against the new memorandum of understanding brokered between President Donald Trump and Iran.
At least for now, however, their responses are more muted than when the same groups publicly opposed former President Barack Obama’s own Iran deal in 2015. And at least one major Jewish group that opposed Obama’s deal is backing Trump’s framework.
“Trust President Trump,” the Republican Jewish Coalition told its followers Thursday, becoming the most notable Jewish group to support Trump’s memorandum of understanding.
“President Trump has earned the trust of the Jewish community as he and his team work towards a final agreement,” RJC CEO Matt Brooks and chair Norm Coleman said in a statement. They praised the MOU, saying it “envisions a horizon of economic stability for the United States, the region, and the world,” and that it “provides an opportunity for potential new pathways to greater peace.”
The RJC cautioned that “a final deal must avoid the flaws that doomed Obama’s,” specifying that there should be “no sunset clauses” on Iran’s nuclear program and other proposals. In the days before its own statement, the group had been reposting praise of the MOU from other Trump allies, including Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Meanwhile, the American Jewish Committee and the pro-Israel lobbying giant AIPAC took a different tack. They became the largest Jewish organizations to voice concern with the new Iran deal on Thursday, issuing public objections following requests for comment from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The MOU “raises significant questions,” AIPAC said in a lengthy statement that urged Congress to intervene ahead of “a final nuclear agreement,” claiming that the terms of the MOU don’t match “President Trump’s stated objectives for the war.”
The AJC outlined what it said were seven “concerns” it had with the MOU. Like most of the other Jewish groups that responded to JTA for this story, the AJC also expressed hope that the terms of the deal could be changed to be stricter on Iran and more favorable to Israel before it is finalized. (In 2015, in response to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the AJC said it “overwhelmingly” would “oppose this deal.”)
Trump’s MOU is not a final agreement, unlike Obama’s JCPOA. Rather, it marks the start of a 60-day negotiating period that aims to end the Iran war about to enter its fourth month. It does not yet outline any clear commitments regarding Iran’s nuclear program, which had been at the heart of the JCPOA and which is of particular concern to Jewish groups, who are roundly opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon in large part because of the risk to Israel. Many had objected to Obama’s deal in part because of its “sunset clauses” that would have phased out nuclear restrictions starting at the 10-year mark.
Regardless, many analysts across the political spectrum are concluding that Trump’s framework is a worse deal than Obama’s, in part because it provides a pathway for Iran to stage an economic recovery.
The Israeli government, which sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to personally lobby Congress in 2015 to oppose Obama’s deal, is also strongly opposed to Trump’s — in part because it would require Israel to withdraw from fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. A new poll by Israel’s Channel 12 found that 71% of Israelis don’t trust Trump to look out for their country’s interests in negotiations with Iran.
Hawkish pro-Israel think tanks, including the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, issued papers knocking Trump’s deal.
“In some ways, the MOU is even weaker than President Barack Obama’s,” JINSA said. “This new deal authorizes the transfer of far more money and lifts many more sanctions on Iran than the JCPOA ever did.”
Trump and his top surrogates, including Vice President JD Vance, are increasingly signaling a lack of patience with Israel and a willingness to prioritize ending the war over stopping Iran’s nuclear program.
Some groups are waiting before weighing in. Nathan Diament, head of the Orthodox Union, declared Obama’s deal “not kosher” in 2015. On Thursday, he told JTA that the question of how to respond to Trump’s deal “will be a central topic of discussion” at the group’s leadership advocacy mission in Washington, D.C., taking place early next week. O.U. representatives are scheduled to meet with members of the Trump administration, as well as members of Congress.
JTA reached out Thursday to a wide range of Jewish groups that publicly opposed Obama’s Iran deal in 2015 to ask them their views on Trump’s. Many others, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, did not respond by press time.
Of those who did, only Morton Klein, head of the right-wing Zionist Organization of America, castigated the MOU outright. Klein told JTA he was “extremely upset with this deal” — and with Trump.
“I find this deal just astonishing,” Klein said. “Helping out a country that Trump himself said, if they’d gotten nukes, they’d have used them on Israel and killed millions of Jews? So that mentality, now you’re helping them rebuild?”
He added, “Trump has done many wonderful things for Israel, so we’ve praised Trump for that. But now he’s doing something very bad for Israel and America.”
Such level of forceful public opposition to the deal, though, is rare in Jewish circles at present — especially in contrast with the extent of Jewish mobilization against Obama’s deal in 2015.
Back then, in addition to the usual Jewish advocacy groups, dozens of local Jewish federations across the country pushed their communities and representatives to fight it, in a sweeping and sustained show of opposition.
“This Iran deal threatens the mission of our Federation as we exist to assure the continuity of the Jewish people, support a secure State of Israel, care for Jews in need here and abroad and mobilize on issues of concern,” one typical statement, from the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, read at the time.
Three years later, during Trump’s first term, he tore up the JCPOA, calling it “a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.”
The lack of similar opposition today for Trump’s deal, Klein said, was glaring: “Nobody is taking issue with this agreement in the Jewish world.”
Among local Jewish groups, the initial reaction to Trump’s MOU has struck a measured tone. The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, one of dozens of local Jewish communal groups that publicly opposed the 2015 JCPOA, told JTA it was “concerned” that Trump’s deal “has granted Iran a new leverage point to use in the future to inflict pain on the world’s economy.”
Ron Halber, the JCRC’s head, blasted the MOU for being crafted without Israel’s input, and for requiring Israel to withdraw from its offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Similar to AIPAC, Halber said his organization would continue to push for “a final U.S.-Iran agreement” that is more favorable to Israel and takes harsher measures against Iran.
In its statement, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, which also opposed the JCPOA, did not directly weigh in on the new MOU. Instead, the federation said, “Any agreement involving the Iranian regime should be judged by its ability to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran,” among other factors.
JTA reached out to six other major Jewish federations that opposed the 2015 JCPOA, including Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, which was the first federation to oppose that deal and whose leader wrote, in 2021, “We were right.”
CJP of Boston did not respond to a request for comment. The Jewish United Fund of Chicago declined to comment, while several other federations that opposed the JCPOA — including Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix and Detroit — did not respond by press time.
In its own statement opposing the MOU, AIPAC did not outline an advocacy plan to combat it, in contrast to its full-court press against the JCPOA. An AIPAC spokesperson did not return a JTA request for comment on whether, or how, it planned to advocate against Trump’s MOU.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Jewish groups push back against Trump’s Iran deal — but more quietly so far than in 2015 appeared first on The Forward.
