Uncategorized
‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests
(JTA) — When Benjamin Netanyahu put his controversial calls for judicial reform on pause two weeks ago, many thought the protesters in Israel and abroad might declare victory and take a break. And yet a week ago Saturday some 200,000 people demonstrated in Tel Aviv, and pro-democracy protests continued among Diaspora Jews and Israeli expats, including those who gather each Sunday in New York’s Washington Square Park.
On its face, the weeks of protest have been about proposed legislation that critics said would sap power from the Israeli Supreme Court and give legislators — in this case, led by Netanyahu’s recently elected far-right coalition — unchecked and unprecedented power. Protesters said that, in the absence of an Israeli constitution establishing basic rights and norms, they were fighting for democracy. The government too says the changes are about democracy, claiming under the current system unelected judges too often overrule elected lawmakers and the will of Israel’s diverse electorate.
But the political dynamics in Israel are complex, and the proposals and the backlash are also about deeper cracks in Israeli society. Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, recently said in a podcast that the crisis in Israel represents “six linked but separate stories unfolding at the same time.” Beyond the judicial reform itself, these stories include the Palestinians and the occupation, a resurgent patriotism among the center and the left, chaos within Netanyahu’s camp, a Diaspora emboldened to weigh in on the future of Zionism and the rejection on the part of the public of a reform that failed the “reasonableness test.”
“If these protests are effective in the long run, it will be, I think, because they will have succeeded at reorganizing and mobilizing the Israeli electorate to think and behave differently than before,” said Kurtzer.
I recently asked observers, here and in Israel, what they feel is really mobilizing the electorate, and what kind of Israel will emerge as a result of the showdown. The respondents included organizers of the protests, supporters of their aims and those skeptical of the protesters’ motivations. They discussed a slew of issues just below the surface of the protest, including the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, divisions over the increasing strength of Israel’s haredi Orthodox sector, and a lingering divide between Ashkenazi Jews with roots in Europe and Mizrahi Jews whose ancestry is Middle Eastern and North African.
Conservatives, meanwhile, insist that Israeli “elites” — the highly educated, the tech sector, the military leadership, for starters — don’t respect the will of the majority who brought Netanyahu and his coalition partners to power.
Here are the emerging themes of weeks of protest:
Defending democracy
Whatever their long-term concerns about Israel’s future, the protests are being held under the banner of “democracy.”
For Alon-Lee Green, one of the organizers of the protests, the issues are equality and fairness. “People in Israel,” said Green, national co-director of Standing Together, a grassroots movement in Israel, “hundreds of thousands of them, are going out to the streets for months now not only because of the judicial reform, but also — and mainly — because of the fundamental question of what is the society we want to live in: Will we keep living in a society that is unequal, unfair and that is moving away from our basic needs and desires, or will it be an equal society for everyone who lives in our land?”
Shany Granot-Lubaton, who has been organizing pro-democracy rallies among Israelis living in New York City, says Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and the coalition’s haredi Orthodox parties “are waging a war against democracy and the freedoms of citizens.”
“They seek to exert control over the Knesset and the judicial system, appoint judges in their favor and legalize corruption,” she said. “If this legal coup is allowed to proceed, minorities will be in serious danger, and democracy itself will be threatened.”
Two researchers at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Herzliya’s Reichman University, psychology student Benjamin Amram and research associate Keren L.G. Snider, said Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reform “undermines the integrity of Israel’s democracy by consolidating power.”
“How can citizens trust a government that ultimately has no limitations set upon them?” they asked in a joint email. “At a time when political trust and political representation are at the lowest points, this legislation can only create instability and call into question the intentions of the current ruling party. When one coalition holds all the power, laws and policies can be swiftly overturned, causing instability and volatility.”
A struggle between two Israels
Other commentators said the protests revealed fractures within Israeli society that long predated the conflict over judicial reform. “The split is between those that believe Israel should be a more religious country, with less democracy, and see democracy as only a system of elections and not a set of values, and those who want Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state,” Tzipi Livni, who served in the cabinets of right-wing prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert before tacking to the center in recent years, recently told Haaretz.
Author and translator David Hazony called this “a struggle between two Israels” — one that sees Israel’s founding vision as a European-style, rights-based democracy, and the other that sees that vision as the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland.
“Those on the first side believe that the judiciary has always been Israel’s protector of rights and therefore of democracy, against the rapaciousness and lawlessness of politicians in general and especially those on the right. Therefore an assault on its supremacy is an assault on democracy itself. They accuse the other side of being barbaric, antidemocratic and violent,” said Hazony, editor of the forthcoming anthology “Jewish Priorities.”
As for the other side, he said, they see an activist judiciary as an attempt by Ashkenazi elites to force their minority view on the majority. Supporters of the government think it is entirely unreasonable “for judges to think they can choose their successors, strike down constitutional legislation and rule according to ‘that which is reasonable in the eyes of the enlightened community in Israel,’” said Hazony, quoting Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and bane of Israel’s right.
(Naveh Dromi, a right-wing columnist for Yediot Achronot, puts this more bluntly: “The problem,” she writes, “lies in the fact that the left has no faith in its chance to win an election, so it relies on the high court to represent it.”)
Daniel Tauber, an attorney and Likud Central Committee member, agrees that those who voted for Netanyahu and his coalition have their own concerns about a democracy — one dominated by “elites,” which in the Israeli context means old-guard Ashkenazi Jews, powerful labor unions and highly educated secular Jews. “The more this process is subject to veto by non-democratic institutions, whether it be the Court chosen as it is, elite military units, the Histadrut [labor union], or others, the more people will lose faith in democracy,” said Tauber.
Green also said there is “a war waging now between two elites in Israel” — the “old and more established liberal elite, who consist of the financial, high-tech army and industry people,” and the “new emerging elite of the settlers and the political far-right parties.”
Israelis protest against the government’s planned judicial overhaul, outside the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, March 27, 2023. (Jamal Awad/Flash90)
And yet, he said, “I think we will lose if one of these elites wins. The real victory of this historic political moment in Israel will be if we achieve true equality, both to the people who are not represented by the Jewish supremacists, such as the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to the people who are not represented by the ‘old Israel,’ such as the haredi and Mizrahi people on the peripheries.”
The crises behind the crisis
Although the protests were ignited by Netanyahu’s calls for judicial reform, they also represented pushback against the most right-wing government in Israeli history — which means at some level the protests were also about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of religion in Israeli society. “The unspoken motivation driving the architects and supporters of the [judicial] ‘reform,’ as well as the protest leaders, is umbilically connected to the occupation,” writes Carolina Landsmann, a Haaretz columnist. If Netanyahu has his way, she writes, “There will be no more two-state solution, and there will be no territorial compromises. The new diplomatic horizon will be a single state, with the Palestinians as subjects deprived of citizenship.”
Nimrod Novik, the Israel Fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, said that “once awakened, the simmering resentment of those liberal Israelis about other issues was brought to the surface.” The Palestinian issue, for example, is at an “explosive moment,” said Novik: The Palestinian Authority is weakened and ineffective, Palestinian youth lack hope for a better future, and Israeli settlers feel emboldened by supporters in the ruling coalition. “The Israeli security establishment took this all into account when warning the government to change course before it is too late,” said Novik.
Kurtzer too noted that the Palestinians “also stand to be extremely victimized following the passage of judicial reform, both in Israel and in the West Bank.” And yet, he said, most Israelis aren’t ready to upend the current status quo between Israelis and Palestinians. “It can also be true that the Israeli public can only build the kind of coalition that it’s building right now because it is patently not a referendum on the issue of Palestinian rights,” he said.
Religion and state
Novik spoke about another barely subterranean theme of the protests: the growing power of the haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, parties. Secular Israelis especially resent that the haredim disproportionately seek exemption from military service and that non-haredi Israelis contribute some 90% of all taxes collected. One fear of those opposing the judicial reform legislation is that the religious parties will “forever secure state funding to the haredi Orthodox school system while exempting it from teaching the subjects required for ever joining the workforce. It is to secure for them an exemption from any military or other national service. And it is to expand the imposition of their lifestyle on non-Orthodox Israelis.”
What’s next
Predictions for the future range from warnings of a civil war (by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, among others) to an eventual compromise on Netanyahu’s part to the emergence of a new center electorate that will reject extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
David E. Bernstein, a law professor at the George Mason University School of Law who writes frequently about Israel, imagines a future without extremists. “One can definitely easily imagine the business, academic and legal elite using their newfound political voice to insist that future governments not align with extremists, that haredi authority over national life be limited, and, perhaps most important, that Israel create a formal constitution that protects certain basic rights,” he said. “Perhaps there will also be demand to counter such long-festering problems as corruption, disproportionate influence over export markets by a few influential families, burgeoning lawlessness in the Arab sector and a massive shortage of affordable housing.”
Elie Bennett, director of International Strategy at the Israel Democracy Institute, also sees an opportunity in the crisis.
In the aftermath of the disastrous 1973 Yom Kippur war, he said, Israel “rebuilt its military and eventually laid the foundations for today’s ‘startup nation.’ In this current crisis, we do not need a call-up of our reserves forces, or a massive airlift of American weaponry to prevail. What we need is goodwill among fellow Israelis and a commitment to work together to strengthen our society and reach an agreed-upon constitutional framework. If we are able to achieve such an agreement, it will protect our rights, better define the relationships between the branches of government, and result in an Israel that is more stable and prosperous than ever as we celebrate 75 years of independence.”
—
The post ‘Two Israels’: What’s really behind the judicial reform protests appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Don’t give up on us now’: Israel peace summit convenes thousands to aim for elusive progress
TEL AVIV, ISRAEL — On Thursday’s bright, sun-drenched morning during a rare pause in the multi-front war Israel has been locked into for nearly three years, in between the protests, funerals and steady drumbeat of violence and trauma, something decidedly more hopeful was taking place.
In one of the city’s largest conference centers, thousands gathered for the third annual People’s Peace Summit under the banner “It must be. It can be. It will be.” The event was organized by the It’s Time coalition, a partnership of more than 80 grassroots peacebuilding and shared society organizations.
Young activists in T-shirts representing their various causes stood alongside older attendees, some in kippot, others in hijabs. Diplomats in business attire moved through the crowd, as did the handful of Israeli politicians still publicly associated with the peace camp – familiar faces in a political landscape where their ranks have thinned considerably. Outside the main arena, Hebrew mingled with Arabic and English as participants strolled through art installations and an organizational fair showcasing the work of It’s Time’s partners.
While previous events took place at the height of war — while hostages remained in captivity and Gaza endured devastating destruction — this year’s summit unfolded during a fragile lull in fighting, the tenuous ceasefires with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allowing, however briefly, for conversations to move beyond issues of immediate survival. Speakers tackled settler violence in the West Bank, looming elections, the immense challenge of rebuilding Gaza and the broader question of how to move Israel and Palestine beyond its default state of perpetual conflict. Inside the packed sessions, the tone was equal parts practical, sober and hopeful.
After a quick coffee break, the thousands of participants came together for an evening of stirring speeches and raucous musical performances. When Israeli pop icon Dana International took the stage with a familiar anthem of peace, the crowd rose to its feet, wrapping their arms around one another and belting out the words.
Despite the joyous atmosphere, the event — and the coalition behind it — is not immune from criticism. Some critiques appear to have been internalized: this year’s programming leaned more heavily into policy, strategy and the hard realities of war than previous gatherings. Other issues remain unresolved. Palestinian participation, while present, was still markedly limited, which organizers attribute largely to government-imposed restrictions on movement rather than a lack of interest. Still, the question of whether a civil society movement like this can translate hope and optimism into concrete political change remains to be seen.
That tension between aspiration and reality extends well beyond Israel. In the United States, support for Israel, particularly among younger American Jews, is waning. A 2024 Pew survey found that fewer than half of American Jews under 30 say they feel “very attached” to Israel, while a JFNA poll released in February 2026, found that just 37% of all American Jews identify as Zionists. Both numbers represent a sharp decline from older generations.
For Shira Ben Sasson, Israel director of the New Israel Fund, it is precisely the peace camp which could hold the answer to this growing disillusionment. If the state itself no longer reflects the values that once anchored many American Jews’ connection to Israel, she suggests, perhaps their more natural partner is the small but determined coalition of Israelis working to change it.
“I appreciate how difficult it is to be a Jew who cares about Israel right now,” she told the Forward as the conference, which New Israel Fund helped support and coordinate, got underway. “People are struggling with what they are seeing — the way Israel is conducting itself. Its policies. They are watching the value set that once connected them so strongly to the Jewish state disappear.”
Her response is one of both reassurance and redirection.
“Thank you for continuing to care,” she said. “But remember — the Israeli government is not your partner. We are. Pro-democracy civil society is your partner. Those of us who are fighting for equality here, for the rights of non-Israeli Jews and the rights of non-Jewish Israelis are your partners. This is where those shared values still live.”
If that message feels unfamiliar to those in the diaspora, Ben Sasson suggests the reason ultimately comes down to lack of exposure.
“We, the Israeli peace camp, need to be in many more places than we are right now,” she said. “We must get the word out that while we might not be the majority here, we are not only growing in number, we are expanding our diversity as well.”
She pointed to the rising number of Orthodox Jews, like herself, who have joined the movement as one example.
Ben Sasson also emphasized that, as with any strong partnership, the relationship must move in both directions. Israeli peace activists, she said, must make themselves more visible to American Jews. But American Jews also need to be willing to open their eyes.
“The mainstream Jewish community has to challenge itself,” she said. “They have to be able to voice their concern for Israeli democracy, for the violence in the occupied territories. And they have to be willing to engage in an honest discussion about peace.”
She is less worried about reaching individuals whose support for Israel may be wavering — many of whom, she believes, will connect with the movement’s vision — than she is about the institutions that have long shaped American Jewish engagement with Israel. Those institutions, she said, have been slow to open themselves to this kind of messaging.
“I think there’s fear,” Ben Sasson explained. “The word ‘peace’ has come to sound political. And once something is labeled political, these legacy institutions don’t want to touch it.”
But that avoidance, she warned, comes at a cost.
“They cannot afford to just stick with the same old stale perception of Israel,” she argued. “If you aren’t willing to talk about the real-life issues that Israelis are facing, you simply won’t be relevant anymore — particularly for the young people in your community.”
“Do not be afraid of controversy,” she added. “Do not be afraid to invite an Arab and a Jew to your event, where there may be disagreement. That’s okay. Struggling and wrestling is a core part of our identity.”
While Ben Sasson contends there is a critical mass of people who are hungry for an alternative way to relate to Israel, the question of feasibility remains; the same question that follows the peace movement inside Israel: Does its growing visibility reflect real political momentum, or is it simply too late to reverse course?
To those who are ready to walk away altogether, Ben Sasson points out that Israel stands to lose not only their support, but also the values and organizing traditions American Jews have long brought to the relationship.
“You’ve helped us achieve so many things in Israel for decades,” she said. “You helped us get a state. And now we need a different kind of support. The Jewish values that you offer — the concept of tikkun olam, which is not at the heart of Israeli Judaism but is at the heart of American Judaism — this is the support you can offer us right now.”
Her final plea was simple.
“Do not give up on Israel,” Ben Sasson said. “There have been so many times when things felt insurmountable and you did not give up on us. Don’t give up on us now.”
The post ‘Don’t give up on us now’: Israel peace summit convenes thousands to aim for elusive progress appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A GOP lawmaker tried to put a Holocaust denier on New Hampshire’s Holocaust education board
(JTA) — A Republican state lawmaker in New Hampshire partnered with a notorious German Holocaust denier in an effort to insert Holocaust denial into the state’s public education guidelines.
Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière successfully pushed the New Hampshire Commission on Holocaust and Genocide Education to hear testimony from Germar Rudolf, a German chemist who has previously been deported from the United States and served prison time in his home country for propagating Holocaust denial.
Two other Holocaust deniers also testified before the state House as a result of Sabourin dit Choinière’s efforts, including a man who grew up Jewish who has led protests outside a Michigan synagogue weekly for more than two decades.
Sabourin dit Choinière’s antics were first reported Wednesday by NPR. But the push actually took place in public view, during a livestreamed meeting of the state House’s Executive Departments and Administration Committee in January.
During the meeting, Sabourin dit Choinière testified that he had visited Dachau and seen a gas chamber, then learned that no one was ever gassed at Dachau. (The Dachau historic site says the chamber’s lack of use “remains unexplained.” More than 40,000 people died at Dachau.)
“This was the first doubt in my mind that over time led towards a revisionist thinking about the Holocaust,” Sabourin dit Choinière said before explaining that he was relieved to have discovered the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” a group that produced a 54-volume set of books that he offered to the committee.
“Holocaust historical revision revisionism as a science does not deny that Jews were persecuted or deprived of their civil rights or deported or herded into ghettos. It does not deny that many were killed, but it does seek to learn why, how and when they died. And it seeks to separate the truth from the fiction,” he said.
“This is vitally important knowledge for the Holocaust and Genocide Education Commission’s curriculum development,” he continued. “If we are going to have Holocaust and Genocide Education taught in New Hampshire public schools, which I think it should be, it needs to be accurate and reliable.”
The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust is run by Rudolf, whose publications have claimed that Zyklon B was never used in the Auschwitz gas chambers, defended notorious Holocaust denier David Irving and cast doubt on photographic evidence of concentration camps.
Few people attended the public meeting, which mostly focused on the state retirement system. Among those in attendance were three men who testified: Rudolf and two members of his group.
“I have under my belt 35 years of research, organizing research, conducting and publishing research, of forensic and archival nature on the Holocaust question,” Rudolf said during his testimony.
The other two men both came in from Michigan: Henry Herskovitz, an Ann Arbor man who for decades has led weekly protests outside a synagogue’s Shabbat services that have incorporated Holocaust denial; and David Skrbina, a former professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn who has published numerous Holocaust-denial books under a pseudonym.
“As a historical event of great importance, we must examine all sides of this topic with an open mind,” Skrbina told the committee. “Exaggerations, lies, gross errors, and physical impossibilities must be identified and rooted out if we are to learn from this event and to do justice to its many victims.”
During the meeting, the testimony elicited little pushback. One state lawmaker indicated sympathy to the Holocaust deniers’ testimony.
“I’ve been there. I’ve seen all of that. I’ve felt it when I walked around. And I think it’s a travesty that we’re trying to hide the truth about what’s happened in the past, and I want to thank you all for bringing this to the committee today, and I think all students everywhere should know what happened,” GOP state Rep. Susan DeRoy told the panel following Rudolf and Herskovitz’s testimony. “So my question would be, why do they want to cover this up?” (The chair shot down the line of questioning, saying, “It’s not an appropriate question.” DeRoy did not immediately reply to a request for comment.)
Sabourin dit Choinière also introduced an amendment that would have added a member of Rudolf’s extremist group to the commission, which oversees Holocaust education that is required in New Hampshire schools and is preparing to update curriculum materials.
The amendment failed. But the fact that it was made and entertained at all was deeply concerning to New Hampshire state representative Loren Selig, a Jewish Democrat and Holocaust commission member.
“Shocked would be an understatement,” Selig told NPR about the moment her colleague introduced it. “I could barely speak.”
Another member of the commission, Rabbi Jon Spira-Savett, told JTA that the incident was “horrifying.”
“Any time anything like this gets a public airing, that’s not good,” Spira-Savett, who leads Temple Beth Abraham in Nashua, said of the legislator’s flirtation with Holocaust denial. “The idea that somehow Holocaust education ought to include hearing the perspective of deniers — we are so, so far beyond that, and it’s terrifying we might actually have to make the case for that here in our state or anywhere.”
The commission was formed with a 2020 state law to set guidelines for the state on teaching the Holocaust, and includes lawmakers from both parties. Sabourin dit Choinière does not serve on it. Though commissioners are dedicated to the task, Spira-Savett said, “it isn’t a state where there’s a tremendous amount of resources to enforce the teaching.”
Unrelated to his Holocaust denial, Rudolf also has a criminal record, having been convicted in Pennsylvania, where he lives, of indecent exposure after being arrested for public nudity at a playground.
Sabourin dit Choinière’s antics come as the Republican Party grapples with internal tensions over antisemitism, as party leaders have grown divided by figures such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes who have minimized the Holocaust or amplified deniers. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lamented the rise of antisemitism in the party to the Republican Jewish Coalition conference earlier this year, while Vice President JD Vance has said he does not want to draw lines that would exclude such voices from the party.
A Republican candidate for state office rejected Sabourin dit Choinière’s endorsement of him following NPR’s reporting. The conservative group Americans For Prosperity, which has endorsed Sabourin dit Choinière in the past, condemned antisemitism in a statement to NPR.
Prior to NPR’s report, Sabourin dit Choinière’s Holocaust commission moves attracted little public attention. A New Hampshire progressive group in January called on House Speaker Sherman Packard to strip Sabourin dit Choinière of his committee assignments, which according to the House website he has retained.
“Promoting Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories is incompatible with public service,” a co-founder of the Kent Street Coalition wrote in an open letter published in a nonprofit news site. “Rep. Sabourin dit Choinière should be removed from his committee assignments as a matter of principle and accountability.”
Holocaust education commissions have been the sites of controversy in other states. The South Carolina equivalent last year faced internal division over its chair’s decision to muzzle a local rabbi’s speech tying the Holocaust to modern U.S. policies. Texas’s own commission recently advised on a controversial proposed statewide required reading list, and Texas’s governor also recently appointed a Christian pro-Israel activist to the commission.
Sabourin dit Choinière isn’t the only member of New Hampshire’s state house to have made antisemitic comments related to the Holocaust this year. Another Republican, state Rep. Travis Corcoran, faced disciplinary hearings this week after tweeting a “final solution” joke aimed at a Jewish Democratic colleague.
The post A GOP lawmaker tried to put a Holocaust denier on New Hampshire’s Holocaust education board appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
NH lawmaker reprimanded for ‘final solution’ joke aimed at Jewish colleague
(JTA) — A Republican state legislator in New Hampshire faced a disciplinary hearing this week for having tweeted a “final solution” reference at a Jewish Democratic colleague.
Last month, GOP state Rep. Travis Corcoran wrote on social media, “We need a final solution for theater kids in politics,” in response to state Rep. Jessica Grill’s bid to form a bipartisan “karaoke caucus.”
Corcoran is now facing a possible sanction or expulsion for his comment, which invoked the Nazi “final solution” to murder all Jews. His comments came as the Republican Party has faced internal divisions over the rise of antisemitism within its ranks, with white-nationalist figures and conspiracy theorists including Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens gaining a toehold in some corners of the party.
This week Corcoran defended his comments to the legislature, saying he was joking and did not know his colleague was Jewish. He called disciplinary procedures against him a “kangaroo court.”
“A joke is now being treated as though it were an act of malice, and sarcasm is being recast as hate speech. This is absurd,” Corcoran told colleagues during his testimony. On social media, he later wrote, “Apologies are a humiliation ritual that the left forces on people to demonstrate their power over you. Say whatever you want about me, but I’m never going to cower so that cucks will like me.” He used a common slang term for “cuckold,” a husband who has been cheated on.
A self-described libertarian, prolific social media user and self-published science-fiction author, Corcoran has developed a reputation in his state for coarse, frequently offensive commentary. He has urged his followers to “all say or type” the N-word “in a public place,” has said “crime is predominantly caused by African Americans” and, prior to his 2022 election, reportedly defended the 2011 attempted assassination of then-U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords as “morally legitimate” on his blog.
Grill, the Jewish state lawmaker to whom Corcoran had directed his comment, called for Corcoran to be expelled from the state House, saying he had rejected requests to mediate the matter privately. Corcoran left the hearing before Grill spoke.
“As a Jewish lawmaker, the use of this phrase ‘final solution’ is especially disturbing,” she said during the hearing. “It’s not a poorly worded joke; it is targeted language with a specific historical meaning. And more importantly, it was delivered at a time when both antisemitism and political violence are, unfortunately, on the rise on all sides of the ideological spectrum.”
Grill continued, “An antisemitic threat does not serve the public interest or advance free speech and debate.”
Among the other voices calling for disciplinary action against Corcoran were current and former Jewish state lawmakers in New Hampshire, including Jeffrey Salloway, a former Democratic lawmaker in the state house and longtime lay leader in the Conservative movement of Judaism. Many non-Jewish commenters also gave testimony supporting Grill.
One Republican, state Rep. Matt Drew, defended Corcoran on free-speech grounds but did not say whether he believed the comment was antisemitic.
Corcoran was not the only New Hampshire Republican state lawmaker to face controversy this year over Holocaust-related comments. A colleague, state Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière, invited Holocaust deniers to testify to the state’s Holocaust education committee in January while attempting to push an amendment to incorporate Holocaust denial into the state’s public education guidelines.
The post NH lawmaker reprimanded for ‘final solution’ joke aimed at Jewish colleague appeared first on The Forward.