Uncategorized
They rallied rabbis against Mamdani’s anti-Zionism. What does The Jewish Majority do next?
(JTA) — Plenty of Jews were concerned about the specter of Zohran Mamdani becoming mayor of New York. But few did as much to mobilize other Jews around the issue as Jonathan Schulman.
Via his newly formed organization, The Jewish Majority, Schulman circulated a letter to rabbis and cantors around the country opposing “rising anti-Zionism and its political normalization throughout our nation.” The letter, which called out Mamdani by name, was signed by more than 1,100 Jewish congregational leaders — one of the most widely endorsed missives of its kind — and galvanized many clergy who had been reluctant to use their pulpits to wade into a political arena.
They didn’t get what they wanted. Yet the day after a decisive victory by Mamdani, Schulman wasn’t as despondent as one might imagine. Instead, he sees his group’s work as a success.
“This wasn’t about Mamdani,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Wednesday, rejecting the suggestion that his campaign amounted to an effort to get Jews to vote against the mayor-elect.
Instead, Schulman said, The Jewish Majority proved that it could combat a “subversion of the accurate representation of the Jewish narrative.”
He sees his work as simple: providing an organized Jewish voice, on Israel and other issues, to counteract what he sees as the growing influence of left-wing Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. As members of those groups have aligned closely with Mamdani and stand to grow their influence under his administration, the Jewish Majority aims to serve as a counter-narrative.
“They exist to present fringe views to the public as normative,” he said. “If we decide to let them be the only ones to hold the microphone, that would be a mistake we can’t afford to make.” That includes on the issue of “political anti-Zionism,” which Schulman insists was the goal of the rabbinic letter — rather than an explicit anti-endorsement of Mamdani as a candidate.
There are an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 rabbis in the United States, meaning that potentially a third of them signed on to a single statement. Others indicated that they agreed with the sentiments but chose not to sign for other reasons.
“We’ve seen countless examples over the past couple of years of Jews coming out in support of anti-Zionist candidates,” Schulman said. “And now that narrative has shifted. Now you look at that narrative and it’s hard to say, ‘Well, look, these rabbis are supporting this candidate.’ Well, in fact, what you’re seeing is overwhelmingly one of the largest displays of rabbinic unity that we’ve seen in our country, saying we don’t accept the normalization of political anti-Zionism.”
He is skeptical of early exit polling purporting to show as many as one-third of Jewish voters in New York breaking for Mamdani, and suspects the actual number is closer to the “80-20” split that research suggests also reflects the Jewish consensus around Zionism.
Promoting an institutional Jewish consensus will continue post-Mamdani. Schulman insisted The Jewish Majority would not be making policy, only amplifying the views of major Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, Jewish federations and the New York Board of Rabbis. He also said he would not seek to join the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Groups or other coalitions.
“We’re here to reflect,” he said. “It’s not my job to weigh in.” One item on his agenda, he said, is instituting “training programs” to teach Jewish leaders how to “present normative communal perspectives.”
Schulman has felt his own priorities within the Jewish community shift. Before striking off on his own, he spent 18 years at the pro-Israel lobbying giant AIPAC. One of his duties was to “work with congregations throughout the United States to increase the level of pro-Israel political activism in American synagogues.”
He left AIPAC in August 2024, as the group’s brand was becoming increasingly toxic amid the war in Gaza. Today even some moderate Democrats, like Massachusetts Senate candidate Seth Moulton, have sworn off accepting AIPAC donations. When radio host Charlamagne tha God wanted to insult Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as someone with no real principles, he called the Brooklyn congressman “AIPAC Shakur.”
Schulman declined to comment on whether he had split from AIPAC ideologically. “I have a lot of respect for my former colleagues, and it’s a great organization,” he said. Nor does he see his work with The Jewish Majority as a throughline from his work there. Despite the overlapping focus on Jewish clergy, he insisted, this is “not ‘AIPAC by a different name.’”
Instead, he said, he left AIPAC because he had identified this new problem — the growing influence of left-wing Jewish groups after Oct. 7 — and wanted to counteract it, in a way he deemed non-political in nature. Even with all the Jewish organizations that were opposing anti-Zionism on the national stage, he said, “there is nobody whose job is to make sure that the Jewish community is accurately represented, that Jewish communal values are accurately represented.”
Those same Jewish groups, whose priorities he hopes to give a megaphone to, are scrambling in the wake of Mamdani’s big win. The ADL has launched a “Mamdani monitor” to keep tabs on the new mayor’s administration. JFREJ, meanwhile, sees no reason to come to the Jewish center: A victory Zoom call scheduled for Thursday to “celebrate our massive win” is set to feature pro-Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour and Jamaal Bowman, the former “Squad” congressman who is rumored to be on Mamdani’s schools chancellor shortlist.
Schulman is optimistic about building an organized Jewish counter-narrative to that perspective — so long as the ceasefire in Gaza holds.
“The American Jewish community has been undergoing a profound change, and because we’ve been in the middle of this war, which has been a propaganda war here in America that we’ve seen proliferating, we haven’t had the capacity to really think about, ‘What is the future going to look like?’” he said.
“People are starting to finally say, OK, the fighting has stopped, and we need to think about how the Jewish community is going to be able to represent itself for the long haul.”
The post They rallied rabbis against Mamdani’s anti-Zionism. What does The Jewish Majority do next? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Debating Zionism is good for Jews, actually
A group of Jewish Theological Seminary students were furious with the chancellor’s position on Jewish statehood. In protest, they draped flags around campus before graduation, which the administration removed before the ceremony.
The year was 1948. The flags were Israeli. And the dissenting students were protesting Chancellor Louis Finkelstein’s refusal to make support for Jewish statehood part of academic commencement. Some students even arranged for the bells at nearby Union Theological Seminary to play “Hatikvah,” the Israeli national anthem, after JTS officials declined to include it in commencement.
As a historian of American Zionism, I have been thinking about that episode while reading the many vitriolic reactions to a few JTS undergraduates who spoke out in opposition to the seminary’s decision to welcome Israeli President Isaac Herzog as this year’s graduation speaker. Once again, a JTS commencement has become a battleground over Israel, but the sides are now reversed.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether this was the right moment to extend an invitation to Herzog to speak at commencement. What deserves attention is the outraged reaction to a group of students raising objections, and the speed with which those students’ concerns have been cast as a deviation from the historical contours of mainstream American Jewish politics.
A recent Times of Israel blog post, for example, argued that the mere fact that JTS students raised concerns about Herzog was a rupture with Judaism. “Jewish survival without sovereignty is fragile,” wrote the author, Menachem Creditor, adding that “the founders of JTS did not need to debate the necessity of Jewish self-determination,” and that Herzog “represents the state of Israel and the Jewish people.”
These claims erase JTS’s long and sophisticated engagement with Jewish nationalism and the conception of Jewish peoplehood. Reading American Zionism backward risks collapsing peoplehood and statehood, and creating traditions to ratify present assumptions out of a past that never existed.
The relationship between Zionism and JTS was nuanced from the start. Both founding president Sabato Morais and the seminary’s third chancellor, Cyrus Adler, opposed Zionism on religious grounds. Morais believed the restoration of Jewish sovereignty could only come through divine intervention at the dawn of a messianic era. Adler thought of the growth of a non-religious community in the land of Israel “as the greatest misfortune that has happened to the Jews in modern times.”
Solomon Schechter, as chancellor, brought a measure of support for the Zionist movement to JTS; shaped by the cultural Zionism of Ahad Ha-am, Schechter insisted that Zionism transcended statehood. Its primary aim, he argued, was the national regeneration of global Judaism, not the creation of a secular state that would hollow out Jewish life from within.
And the controversies over the 1948 graduation exercises revealed how far Louis Finkelstein stood from political Zionism, even after the establishment of Israel. Where some Zionists celebrated sovereignty, Finkelstein remained focused on the Jewish character of the land and its people. That orientation drew him toward Judah Magnes’s binational vision — that of a federated framework in which Jews and Arabs would each hold recognized rights and a measure of national autonomy within a single shared political entity.
This reticence to conflate Judaism, Zionism and Jewish sovereignty was not limited to the seminary’s chancellors.
Henrietta Szold, JTS’s first female student, a central figure in its intellectual orbit, and the founder of Hadassah, similarly supported a binational vision from her new home in Jerusalem. Mordecai Kaplan — a longtime JTS faculty member, committed Zionist, and one of the most influential American Jewish thinkers of the 20th century — expressed concern throughout his career about the mistake of equating Jewish nationhood with Jewish statehood. In Judaism as a Civilization, he called for a “more ethical conception of nationhood fundamentally as a cultural rather than as a political relationship.”
After Israel’s founding, Kaplan went further, arguing to David Ben-Gurion in 1958 that “the basic assumption that the state of Israel is a Jewish state is itself open to question.” The Israeli government’s task, he insisted, was to establish “a modern state, not a Jewish state, an Israeli state, not a Jewish state.”
These questions did not disappear even as JTS evolved under new leadership.
Gerson Cohen, whose chancellorship beginning in 1972 marked a shift toward a more pro-statist posture, embraced the state’s significance for Jewish life and identity in ways his predecessors had not. Yet even Cohen insisted that commitment to Judaism must rest “not on political statehood or upon geography but solely on the idea of covenant and commitment to ethos.” He argued that a flourishing diaspora was a necessity for Jewish civilization as a whole, not adjunct to Israeli interests.
His successor, Chancellor Emeritus Ismar Schorsch, was more direct, saying in a recent warning that Jews must ensure that “Judaism qua religion is not submerged and shredded by the power of the Jewish state.”
One can disagree with any of these perspectives. In fact, the disagreement itself is the point.
The leaders who built JTS debated Jewish self-determination, Zionism and statehood while living through the Holocaust, the collapse of European Jewish life, existential danger in Palestine, and the precarious birth of the state of Israel. They were not naïve about antisemitism, indifferent to Jewish survival, or ignorant of Jewish sources. Nor were they unsophisticated about Zionism.
Instead, they offered a more demanding account of Zionism: one that affirmed a Jewish homeland and insisted that Jewish power remain answerable to Jewish ethics, all without diminishing Jewish life in the diaspora.
This is precisely the perspective that has been crowded out of our contemporary discourse, not because these questions were answered, but because the space to ask them has collapsed. As the boundaries of acceptable Zionist discourse have narrowed, issues that arose from within Zionism itself — the potential dangers of equating the Israeli state with the Jewish people, the risks of elevating political statehood above other ethical and communal commitments, and the need to have diaspora Jewish life be seen as carrying independent religious and moral weight — have come to be treated as anti-Zionist rather than part of a living internal debate.
The furor over the JTS undergraduates’ letter objecting to Herzog is a troubling sign that, across American Jewish life, it has become harder to think honestly about the risks of treating support for the state of Israel not merely as a Jewish commitment, but as one that takes precedence over other all other Jewish commitments. When the past is rewritten so that the equation of peoplehood and statehood appears inevitable, American Jews are left with a false choice: either embrace the state as an unquestioned and unquestionable expression of Jewish identity, or abandon Jewish life altogether.
JTS has offered its students a richer education because, in its halls, the relationship between the Jewish people and the Jewish state has been debated and contested. That discourse is not a failure of Jewish commitment, but an expression of it. The sustained engagement with the hardest questions of Zionism is one of the best things JTS has given American Jewish life, and one of the most important gifts it still has to offer.
The post Debating Zionism is good for Jews, actually appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Sidesteps ‘Genocide’ Accusations Against Israel
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands, Feb. 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
Karim Khan, the embattled chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has cast fresh doubt on accusations that Israel committed “genocide” in Gaza, arguing in a new interview that no legal conclusion has yet been reached in the ongoing legal battle.
In a lengthy interview with anti-Israel journalist Medhi Hasan this week, Khan refused to engage in the popularized rhetoric labeling Israel’s military campaign against Hamas terrorists in Gaza as genocidal, even as pressure mounts on the ICC by activists to pursue more sweeping charges against Israeli officials.
When asked directly whether Israel’s conduct amounted to genocide, Khan emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to level charges against Israeli officials and that prosecutors must follow evidence and legal standards rather than political narratives.
“So, you’re not ruling out that there could be a warrant in the future?” Hasan asked.
“Everything is a function of evidence,” Khan responded, arguing that accusing Israel of genocide for political purposes would be “reckless.”
“You’re saying in the past three years there hasn’t been evidence of genocide in Gaza?” Hasan asked, visibly flummoxed.
Khan lamented the “suffering” in Gaza but reaffirmed that the ICC could not proceed in making final judgements about the nature of Israel’s military operations in Gaza without sufficient evidence. He asserted that officials within the ICC are vigorously analyzing the case and that he cannot reveal more about the nature of the investigation.
“So, genocide is not off limits?” Hasan pressed.
“No crime is off limits if the evidence is there,” Khan responded.
Khan has come under fire for making his initial surprise demand for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on the same day in May 2024 that he suddenly canceled a long-planned visit to both Gaza and Israel to collect evidence of alleged war crimes. The last-second cancellation reportedly infuriated US and British leaders, as the trip would have offered Israeli leaders a first opportunity to present their position and outline any action they were taking to respond to the war crime allegations.
Nonetheless, Khan’s latest remarks are likely to reverberate through international legal and diplomatic circles, where the genocide accusation has become one of the most contentious aspects of the war between Israel and Hamas. Over the past two years, an array of humanitarian organizations and human rights experts have accused Israel of “genocide” in Gaza. These accusations have been controversial and widely contested, with critics alleging these groups and individuals lack sufficient evidence.
Khan’s comments come as the ICC faces intense scrutiny over its investigation into the conflict. In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel as it is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the court. Other countries including the US have similarly not signed the ICC charter. However, the ICC has asserted jurisdiction by accepting “Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, despite no such state being recognized under international law.
Genocide is among the most difficult crimes to prove under international law because prosecutors must establish specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Hasan, one of the most prominent anti-Israel critics in media, has spent the past two years unleashing an unrelenting barrage of criticism against the Jewish state, repeatedly accusing the Israeli military of pursuing a “genocide” in Gaza.
In the interview, Khan also forcefully denied allegations of sexual misconduct that have engulfed his office in recent months, accusing critics of politicizing the claims amid the ICC’s high-profile investigations into Israel, Russia, and other global conflicts. He dismissed suggestions that his pursuit of Israeli leaders was intended to distract from the allegations against him, saying that he did not have evidence to substantiate the claim.
Khan further alleged that senior Western officials attempted to pressure the ICC over its investigation, including what he described as warnings from prominent American and British political figures about the geopolitical consequences of targeting Israeli officials.
The ICC’s investigation has placed the court at the center of an increasingly bitter international divide over the Gaza war. Khan’s comments won’t settle the debate, but the ICC prosecutor appeared to signal a more cautious legal approach than some of Israel’s fiercest critics have demanded.
Uncategorized
UK Police Charge Two Men in Connection with Filming Antisemitic TikTok Videos
The TikTok logo is pictured outside the company’s US head office in Culver City, California, US, Sep. 15, 2020. Photo: REUTERS
British police have charged two men with religiously aggravated harassment offenses after they were alleged to have traveled to a Jewish area of north London to film antisemitic social media videos.
The two men, Adam Bedoui, 20, and Abdelkader Amir Bousloub, 21, are due to appear at Thames Magistrates’ Court, a statement from the Crown Prosecution Service said on Saturday.