Uncategorized
Tragically, ‘genocide’ has become a meaningless word
One of the hallmarks of our degraded political discourse is the abuse of language. Consider some of the words that have either been drained of meaning or coined in order to mislead: terrorist, racist, fascist, anti-fascist, woke, grooming — and lately, in some cases, antisemitism.
And now, sadly: genocide.
Coined in 1944 to refer to the most heinous of crimes against humanity, the term ‘genocide’ has now become a meaningless shibboleth, a touchstone for virtue-signaling by the Right and Left.
And worst of all, some of Israel’s defenders are now joining in the degradation.
Israel’s critics started it. Israel’s military response to the atrocities of Oct. 7 had barely begun when critics began labeling it a genocide. On Oct. 20, 2023 — just a week into the war — I wrote in this publication that “if ‘genocide’ means any horrible action by one group against another, then it loses its specific moral and legal meaning. It becomes just another word that partisans use against one another.”
That didn’t win me any friends on the Left, but it was true.
But Israel’s tactics and statements of intent changed as the war dragged on. In May 2025, I wrote that Israel’s post-ceasefire tactics, including mass starvation and ‘sociocide’ (the destruction of a society’s physical and social infrastructure), and numerous statements from Israeli politicians in favor of ethnic cleansing, would likely qualify as genocide under the legal definition.
That didn’t win me any friends on the Right or the Center, but it was also true.
In both cases, the question was not whether one supported or opposed Israel’s actions or the suffering of innocent Palestinians. It was whether Israel’s actions were “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
There was almost no evidence of that in October 2023. There was a lot more evidence of it in May 2025. But it is still an open question, one that should be settled in courts of law.
Recently, however, it has become a litmus test. At political events, Democratic candidates are being asked to raise their hands if they think Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocide or not. Yes or No, those are the only choices available. Not “maybe — it has not been decided in court” or “there is evidence on both sides.” Just up or down. Indeed, the candidates are often not even allowed to speak.
And in progressive spaces, if you don’t raise your hand, you’re out.
This is a spectacular display of the ignorance of the mob. Imagine a forum in which candidates are asked to opine on whether someone has committed second-degree murder or manslaughter, or what the correct ratio of contributory negligence is in a multi-party tort action, or the appropriate emissions levels for sulfur dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That would be preposterous; these are complex legal questions that require careful deliberation based on the meanings of the statutes in question and the evidence presented on both sides.
Like it or not, the crime of genocide is the same.
The Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza were, in my view, unambiguously horrifying. At least 70,000 lives were lost. Cities were destroyed; 80% of homes and 70% of farmlands as well. War crimes and crimes against humanity appear to have been committed many times over. It is extremely hard to justify the magnitude of the military action with reference to legitimate military objectives. And, particularly in 2025, several Israeli leaders made statements that would satisfy the ‘intent’ prong of the Genocide Convention if they were deemed to be speaking on behalf of the Israeli government. Even worse, polls from mid-2025 showed that 82% of Jewish Israelis support expelling all Palestinians from Gaza under threat of violence, which constitutes genocide under the legal definition.
But establishing whether that evidence is sufficient to conclude that genocide has taken place is a job of the International Criminal Court (for states) or International Court of Justice (for individuals), not a politician raising their hand at a campaign event.
And now, as if inspired by the ignorance and oversimplification of the Left, a group of centrist rabbis and journalists have joined them in the degradation of language, alleging in a petition now circulating online that “the lie that Israel committed ‘genocide’ in Gaza” is “the latest blood libel to be inflicted on the Jewish people.”
I hasten to point out that this petition does not come from the Hard Right — it includes journalist Yossi Klein Halevi and rabbis Yitz Greenberg and Shmuly Yanklowitz. Many who have signed are friends and spiritual mentors of mine.
Yet it is just as misguided as the misuse of language it seeks to condemn — perhaps even more so, as it now adds “blood libel” to the pile of terms rendered meaningless by misuse.
None of the evidence I have adduced above is mentioned in the petition. There is no mention of the inhabitability of Gaza today, or the insane plan to ethnically cleanse the territory and replace it with Trump-branded resorts. There are no citations to Ben Gvir and Smotrich’s clear statements of genocidal intent or the Israeli public’s support for genocide. Only Israel’s case is made.
Which would be fine, if the petition were a blog post in defense of Israel. But it is much more than that. It is a claim that to use the word genocide is, itself, a blood libel — a baseless, hateful and antisemitic claim.
Why is this helpful, in any way? What could this hateful, factually-challenged slander possibly hope to accomplish?
There are many thoughtful, reasonable people who believe Israel committed genocide in Gaza. There are many thoughtful, reasonable people who believe it has not. Scholars of genocide have made strong arguments on both sides, both backed up by evidence. This is a close case, a serious matter, and a serious charge. Denigrating the “other side” in such brutal and absolutist terms accomplishes nothing.
On the contrary, this petition is so extreme and so preposterous that, in attempting to exculpate Israel, it makes Israel look more guilty. There are arguments to be made in defense of Israel’s actions, and the petition makes some of them. But this accusation is so outlandish that it makes it look like Israel can’t possibly prevail on the merits and must, instead, depict its opponents as bigots.
It also defies common sense. Those who have accused Israel of genocide include many Jewish scholars, religious leaders, journalists and activists. Are they all complicit in vile, murderous acts of antisemitism? What about the Israeli organization B’Tselem and several Jewish progressive organizations? Perhaps they, like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights are deluded, or wrong or careless about the facts. Perhaps they are all jumping on some progressive bandwagon, or improperly focused on Israel, or whatever. Fine. But blood libel?
Moreover, as Shaul Magid has recently written, the refusal even to engage with the horrors of Gaza — except in one self-congratulatory line about internal disagreement being “a sign of moral health” — itself bespeaks a profound loss of conscience. The level of destruction relative to legitimate military goals and the overt statements of genocidal intent by some Israeli leaders demand more than that. They demand teshuvah, not tochechah — introspection, not rebuke.
All of this degradation of discourse is deeply regrettable. The Left was wrong to make the word “genocide” into a Yes/No test of one’s political acceptability, and these would-be defenders of Israel are wrong to make it a test of whether one is an antisemite.
The accusation of ‘genocide’ is not a card played at a political poker game. It is a grave moral and criminal charge, rooted in the Holocaust, and it warrants a serious and objective investigation. Not the further diminishment of our humanity.
The post Tragically, ‘genocide’ has become a meaningless word appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Remembering Abe Foxman, the longtime ADL leader known as the ‘Jewish pope,’ who always answered my calls
Friday before sundown, I realized that Abe Foxman had not sent me his weekly “Shabbat Shalom” message. For the past seven years, since we began texting regularly about Jewish and political issues, the message would arrive each Friday like clockwork — often accompanied by screenshots of Shabbat memes. My response never changed: “Good Shabbos, tzaddik,” using the Hebrew word for a righteous person that Foxman himself often used.
A few minutes after sundown, I texted him anyway: “Good Shabbos, tzaddik.” Then I turned off my phone. The message showed as “read” Saturday night. But there was no response.
I’m sure I wasn’t the only one waiting for Foxman’s Shabbat greetings. The silence said everything. On Sunday, the Anti-Defamation League announced that its former longtime chief had died at age 86.
I first started texting with Foxman after he stepped down in 2015 as national director of the ADL, concluding a remarkable 50-year run with the organization, including nearly three decades at its helm. By then, he had become one of the most recognizable Jewish communal leaders in America. He was nicknamed the “Jewish Pope.” Former President Barack Obama, a frequent target of Foxman’s criticism over Israel policy, said upon Foxman’s retirement: “Abe is irreplaceable.”
For me, a rookie journalist covering national politics through a Jewish lens, Foxman became an invaluable source. He was in the room with presidents, prime ministers and world leaders during some of the Jewish community’s most consequential moments. Yet he was always available. He answered calls quickly. He texted back. He spoke candidly. He could be sharp, direct and deeply critical when he thought leaders were making mistakes. But he was also compassionate, warm and surprisingly personal.
Every conversation began the same way: asking about me. My kids. How I was holding up. Only then would we get to politics. The conversation would often veer from Yiddish to English and back again.
Our last conversation was on April 15, after a record 40 Senate Democrats voted to block $295 million for the transfer of bulldozers to Israel and 36 of them also supported a measure to block the sale of 1,000-pound bombs to the Jewish state. “A broch,” Foxman replied, using the Yiddish word for disaster. “A sad time for American politics.”
That worldview shaped much of his public commentary in recent years. In interviews with the Forward and other publications, Foxman weighed in on rising antisemitism, campus protests, Democratic divisions over Israel, President Donald Trump’s rhetoric, and the Biden-Netanyahu relationship.
Foxman could be combative and unapologetic. Critics on the left viewed him as too hawkish on Israel, while critics on the right sometimes accused him of being too willing to criticize the Israeli government or American conservatives. But nobody doubted his commitment to the Jewish people and to Israel.
Foxman’s own life story
Born in Baranavichy in 1940, in what is now Belarus, Foxman survived the Holocaust as an infant after being hidden by his Polish Catholic nanny, who baptized him to hide his Jewish identity, while his parents were confined to a ghetto. After the war, he was reunited with his parents, first living in a displaced persons camp in Austria before immigrating to the United States.
Those early experiences shaped the course of his career and ultimately made him one of the most influential Jewish communal leaders of the modern era.
In 1965, after getting degrees from City College of New York and New York University School of Law, Foxman joined the Anti-Defamation League as a legal assistant. Over the next five decades, Foxman rose through the ranks of the organization before being named its national director in 1987, a position he held until 2015.
Under his leadership, the ADL became one of the world’s most prominent voices combating antisemitism and hate.
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan appointed Foxman to serve on the council of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. He was reappointed by Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. He was also vice chairman of the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City.
Foxman was often willing to challenge leaders he believed were wrong on Israel, including Democratic presidents he otherwise respected. He was sharply critical of Obama’s approach toward Israel early in his presidency and became one of the leading Jewish voices opposing the administration’s 2009 demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements.
In remarks at Foxman’s farewell dinner in 2015, Susan Rice, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and national security advisor under Obama, told the audience: “The thing I most value about Abe is his candor and integrity. He holds everyone to the same high standards, and I can always count on him to tell it to me straight, even when he knows I won’t necessarily like what he has to say.” In 2020, Foxman publicly advocated for Biden to choose Rice as his vice-presidential running mate.
“America and the Jewish people have lost a moral voice, a passionate advocate for the Jewish people and the state of Israel, and a remarkable leader,” Foxman’s successor, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, said in a statement announcing Foxman’s death.
Foxman’s political commentary
Even after retiring from the ADL, Foxman remained a leading voice in Jewish public life, especially after the election of Trump in 2016.
Foxman told me in an interview at the time that the Jewish community should engage with Trump and hold him accountable when needed. He advised Trump to be cautious about making good on his promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He became more critical of Trump after the president said that there were “very fine people on both sides” in response to a 2017 neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
In 2020, Foxman broke his tradition of not endorsing political candidates to back Biden. He argued that Trump was a “demagogue” whose reelection would be a “body blow for our country and our community.”
Once Biden took office, Foxman started to express doubts about the president’s handling of the U.S. relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He said it “sends the wrong message to our friends and enemies” that Israel is being held to a higher standard than other countries in the region. Foxman was also a harsh critic of the Netanyahu government’s judicial overhaul, warning that the right-wing cabinet ministers could hamper support for Israel among American Jews.
In 2024, he warned that Biden’s increasingly harsh rhetoric over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza would repel Jewish voters. “I believe that this administration, because of its political season, is taking American Jews for granted or has written us off,” said Foxman. ”If they’re worried that the Arabs in Michigan will vote with their feet, they need to worry that Jews can also vote with their feet.”
Most recently, Foxman was critical of national Democrats opposing the military operations against the Iranian regime in March for a lack of congressional authority. “Sadly, it is purely political games,” Foxman told me, noting that previous Democratic administrations conducted military operations without explicit congressional authorization. “Ninety-nine percent of Democrats are on record saying Iran is a terrorist state and cannot have nuclear weapons. So why this game?” he asked.
Now, as Jews mark Jewish American Heritage Month, that voice is silent. But for me, and for the many people still waiting for one more “Shabbat Shalom” message from Foxman, he will not soon be forgotten.
Foxman is survived by his wife Golda, his daughters Michelle and Ariel and four grandchildren.
JTA contributed to this article.
The post Remembering Abe Foxman, the longtime ADL leader known as the ‘Jewish pope,’ who always answered my calls appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jailed Iranian Peace Laureate Mohammadi Moved to Hospital in Tehran
A picture of Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi on the wall of the Grand Hotel in central Oslo before the Nobel banquet, in connection with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize 2023, in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2023. Photo: NTB/Javad Parsa via REUTERS
Iran’s imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi has been moved to a hospital in the capital, Tehran, and has been granted a suspension of her sentence on heavy bail, a foundation run by her family said on Sunday.
Mohammadi, 54, won the prize in 2023 while in prison for a campaign to advance women’s rights and abolish the death penalty. She suffered a heart attack two weeks ago.
Her family had called for her to be transferred from Zanjan, northwest of Tehran, where she was serving her sentence and where she had been initially taken to a hospital, so that she could receive better medical care.
She is now at Tehran Pars Hospital for treatment by her own medical team after being transferred by ambulance, the Narges Mohammadi Foundation said in a statement.
Mohammadi was sentenced to a new prison term of 7-1/2 years, the foundation said in February, weeks before the US and Israel launched their war against Iran. The Nobel committee at the time called on Tehran to free her immediately.
She had been arrested in December after denouncing the death of a lawyer, Khosrow Alikordi. A prosecutor told reporters that she had made provocative remarks at Alikordi’s memorial ceremony.
The foundation gave no details of the bail arrangements or suspension of her sentence.
“However, a suspension is not enough,” it said. “Narges Mohammadi requires permanent, specialized care. We must ensure she never returns to prison.”
Iran shut down most of the internet in the country in January as authorities suppressed mass protests triggered by economic unease. Rights groups have reported ongoing executions of people involved in the unrest.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Attorney General Calls to Cancel Netanyahu’s Mossad Chief Appointment
Israeli Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara. Photo: Twitter
i24 News – Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara told the High Court of Justice on Sunday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to appoint Maj. Gen. Roman Gofman as the next Mossad chief must be canceled.
Baharav-Miara filed her position ahead of a Tuesday hearing on petitions challenging the appointment, telling the court that “substantial flaws” had been found both in the process conducted by the advisory committee and in the conclusions it drew. She said Netanyahu’s decision suffered from “extreme and blatant unreasonableness” and could not stand legally.
At the center of the dispute is the case of Ori Elmakayes, who was a 17-year-old minor when he was activated in 2022 by Division 210, without going through authorized intelligence channels. At the time, the division was commanded by Gofman. Elmakayes was arrested in May 2022 under espionage charges after two officers sent him classified information and told him to post it online as part of an “influence campaign,” despite not being authorized to do so. Gofman initiated this operation. Elmakayes was then held in full detention until July, spending an extended period under electronic monitoring and house arrest before the indictment against him was canceled in late 2023.
Baharav-Miara says Gofman’s involvement in leaking the classified information to the minor, “casts a heavy shadow on Gofman’s integrity and thus on his appointment to head the Mossad.” The attorney general also identified serious procedural failings in the advisory committee’s work. She notes that the majority members signed their opinion before committee chairman and former Supreme Court president Asher Grunis had written his dissent and before two members had reviewed several classified documents significant to the full picture. Grunis concluded that integrity flaws had been found and that it was not appropriate to appoint Gofman as Mossad chief.
The attorney general also says the committee failed to hear directly from Elmakayes or from a relevant senior military intelligence officer, instead relying in part on media interviews.
Netanyahu, who appointed Gofman to head the Mossad starting in early June, for a five-year term, submitted his own response to the court on this past Friday, arguing that the decision fell within his executive authority. The Prime Minister also said that his assessment of the matter was “dozens of times superior” to that of the court, adding that Gofman’s integrity was “found pure,” and describing him as the most qualified candidate.
Other coalition figures responded to the attorney general with sharp criticism, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir accused Baharav-Miara of fighting the state, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said her position was “one step too far” and vowed to advance legislation splitting the attorney general’s role in the Knesset’s summer session.