Uncategorized
US funding for Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system used to enjoy bipartisan support. Not anymore.
(JTA) — A growing number of leading progressives, including the leading liberal pro-Israel lobby, have come out against continued American funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.
J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami on Sunday joined Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna, along with Jewish Democratic congressional challenger Brad Lander, in opposing future budget earmarks for Israeli defense systems.
Such funding was relatively uncontroversial in the past, as the Iron Dome rocket interceptor has drawn near-unanimous praise — including from some of the figures now opposing its U.S. support — for its role in protecting Israeli civilians. As recently as September, a bill to approve Iron Dome supplemental funding passed in the House with only nine dissenting votes.
Now, that consensus has shifted in the wake of the war in Gaza and the joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, both of which are deeply unpopular, particularly among Democrats — even as the Iron Dome recently prevailed in a high-stakes test as Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israeli targets. Some of the progressives now opposing Iron Dome funding are arguing that Israel does not need the assistance.
“With a per capita GDP higher than countries like the United Kingdom, France and Japan, Israel is more than capable of paying for its own defense – just as America’s other wealthy allies already do,” Ben-Ami wrote on J Street’s blog Sunday. “Why should American taxpayers continue to subsidize the defense budget of a prosperous ally, particularly at a time when the U.S. faces its own significant fiscal pressures?”
Ben-Ami said the U.S. should continue to sell the Iron Dome and other defense systems to Israel. He also made the case that ending U.S. support for the defense systems was a boon for Israel.
“Supporters of Israel — many raised on the vision that the Jewish people just want Israel to be treated like all other countries — should welcome the development,” Ben-Ami said. “The benefits of disproportionately large financial assistance today are outweighed by the damage to Israel when that financial support becomes a divisive wedge in American politics.”
J Street’s online policy positions were updated this month to indicate that the group is now “calling for American financial subsidies to Israel’s military to be phased out” by 2028. The group says it still supports the Iron Dome: “Ending those financial subsidies does not mean the United States should cease selling Iron Dome to Israel, but Israel should pay for these systems.”
Ocasio-Cortez, earlier this month, similarly argued that Israel could fund its own defense system.
“Consistent with my voting record to date, I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. law,” she wrote on social media. The New York representative, a “Squad” leader and potential 2028 presidential candidate, made her announcement at a local forum of the Democratic Socialists of America.
In their arguments, Ben-Ami and Ocasio-Cortez are carving out a distinct lane from a different rallying cry popular with anti-Zionists: that Israel should not have an Iron Dome because Palestinians lack an equivalent, or because the Iron Dome indirectly aids Israel’s bombing campaigns.
Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are among those who have argued in this vein, as has Jewish Voice for Peace and the DSA, which last year stated, “Along with other U.S.-funded interceptor systems, the Iron Dome has emboldened Israel to invade or bomb no less than five different countries in the past two years.”
Some close observers of the U.S.-Israel relationship said turning the Iron Dome into a political bargaining chip was revealing of deeper prejudices along similar lines.
“Iron Dome is a purely defensive system. It simply cannot be used to threaten, or harm, or retaliate. Its only use is to save lives,” Ron Hassner, the chair of Israel studies at the University of California-Berkeley, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“When people ask me whether antisemitism is anti-Zionism I often use anti-Zionist attacks on Iron Dome as an example to show that anti-Zionism is worse than antisemitism,” he added. “Antisemites seek to harm Jews. Anti-Zionists seek to stop Jews from defending themselves from harm.”
Ilan Saltzman, a professor of Israel studies at the University of Maryland, told JTA he saw J Street’s position as “a bit more nuanced” and not as extreme as some lawmakers have gone.
“They are not calling for the ending of all U.S. military aid to Israel,” Saltzman said, of the group, pointing to another policy position in which J Street supports selling “short-range air and ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities to Israel.”
Instead, he believes J Street is seeking “to increase the oversight over Israel’s actions in general and the use of U.S.-supported military capabilities in particular.”
“They are saying that you can be American Jewish while maintaining a very critical view of the Israeli government, especially the current one, and that the connection between the U.S. and Israel is important but cannot be beyond compliance with American values and law when it comes to the use of military force,” he said about J Street.
Ocasio-Cortez’s shift on the Iron Dome was notable, as she has drawn criticism from the left in the past for not opposing Iron Dome funding. In addition to voting for the funding in September, she has voted against a measure, introduced by Republican former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, to cut funding, while voting “present” on a 2021 bill to fund the Iron Dome and other Israeli military capabilities.
Her announcement touched off a new round of progressive candidates backing away from the Iron Dome. Khanna, a California congressman also considering a 2028 presidential run, is now also opposing funding for the defensive system, echoing the argument that Israel should be able to pay for it themselves.
“We should not be subsidizing them, especially given their egregious violations of human rights law,” he said.
Congressional candidates in closely watched primaries are also saying they will oppose Iron Dome funding, notably including Lander, the Jewish former New York City Comptroller running against Jewish New York Rep. Dan Goldman. (J Street’s PAC has endorsed Goldman in the race.) Lander was a vocal supporter of Zohran Mamdani’s successful run for mayor of New York City; Mamdani has also backed Ocasio-Cortez’s opposition to Iron Dome funding.
“American foreign policy to Israel has to change, and it has to condition support based on human rights and international law,” Lander, who identifies as a liberal Zionist, told the New York Times editorial board last week. Like some of his allies, Lander also cited the Leahy laws, which mandate that U.S. military support go only to countries that adhere to international human rights law.
Michael Blake, a left-wing challenger to pro-Israel New York Rep. Richie Torres, has also come out in opposition of Iron Dome funding in a recent debate. Torres, meanwhile, has doubled down on his own support of Iron Dome funding, issuing an impassioned statement backing it on Sunday.
“There is a rapidly growing chorus of candidates calling for the defunding of missile defense systems like Iron Dome—at a time when millions of Israeli civilians are facing a constant barrage of rockets, drones, and ballistic missiles,” Torres said. “I will never join that bandwagon—no matter how politically expedient it may become.”
Saying that “even the world’s most committed pacifist should have no objection to Iron Dome,” Torres emphasized that the system’s only purpose is to prevent civilians from being killed. He concluded, “Defunding Iron Dome would not bring peace. It would not de-escalate conflict or end war or save lives. It would serve only one purpose: more dead civilians.”
Eylon Levy, a former spokesperson for the Israeli government, argued that the Iron Dome had delayed conflict with Hamas in Gaza. “If we didn’t have Iron Dome, we wouldn’t have tolerated 20 years of rocket fire from Gaza and waited for October 7 to eliminate the Hamas threat,” he wrote on X last week. “If Hamas’ rockets were hitting their targets, we would have been forced into an all-out war ages ago. Careful what you wish for.”
Meanwhile, progressive Jewish California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who is running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress and has called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, said in a recent debate that he would continue to back Iron Dome funding. The debate was held after Ocasio-Cortez’s announcement that she was no longer supporting funding the Iron Dome.
“I support the Iron Dome. I think there is, to me, a clear distinction,” Wiener said in contrast to one of his opponents, Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who claimed, “Defensive money can be used for offensive weapons.”
Another key argument being made by progressives is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself promoted the idea of winding down Israel’s financial dependence on the United States within the next decade. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a key GOP ally of Netanyahu, has backed the call and said it could be accomplished sooner.
“Netanyahu’s allies in the Knesset just approved a $45 billion defense budget, and the Prime Minister himself also asserted his interest in withdrawing from the MOU with the United States in January,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in her post, referring to the memorandum of understanding outlining U.S. aid to Israel.
Saltzman, for his part, views Netanyahu’s comments in a different light, noting that they came in response to President Trump’s broader tariff plans.
“Netanyahu wanted to show Trump that he understands the general trajectory of the new administration and is attuned to the new attitudes in the White House and is more than willing to plan accordingly,” he said. “It was political pragmatism.”
But on the left, and elsewhere, the new political pragmatism around the Iron Dome may be to view its funding through the prism of “normalizing” relations with Israel — or treating it as the United States treats other countries, by giving relatively little aid.
“Across the political spectrum, a growing view is emerging: the US-Israel relationship should be ‘normalized,’” Ben-Ami wrote.
The post US funding for Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system used to enjoy bipartisan support. Not anymore. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel names a street after renowned Yiddish poet Abraham Sutzkever
The Israeli city of Netanya has renamed one of its streets Rechov Avrom Sutzkever (Abraham Sutzkever Street), after the renowned Yiddish poet and Vilna partisan.
The event on June 10 marked an important cultural moment, recognizing the legacy of a poet who devoted his life to Yiddish language and Jewish culture. During his lifetime, Sutzkever was celebrated not only for his poetry, but also for editing the storied Yiddish literary magazine Di goldene keyt (The Golden Chain) for 46 years. His work remains a fixture in the field of Yiddish literature today.
Sutzkever was born in 1913 in the shtetl of Smorgon, in what is now Belarus. During World War I, his family moved to Siberia, where his father, Hertz Sutzkever, died. In 1921, his mother Rayne moved the family to Vilnius, where Sutzkever attended cheder.
Sutzkever survived the Vilna Ghetto. He was a leader of the “Paper Brigade” that rescued Jewish cultural treasures from the Nazis and later became the only Jewish witness called by the Soviets to testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
His poetry chronicled his childhood in Siberia, his life in the Vilna ghetto and his escape to join the Jewish partisans. In 1947 he settled in Palestine, later Israel.
In Israel, he continued to create, publish and preserve Yiddish culture for decades. Yet, despite his immense influence around the world, he remained less known in Israel because he chose to write and fight for the Yiddish language rather than switch to Hebrew.
This is the first time a street in Israel has been named after him. Even Tel Aviv never did so, despite the fact that Sutzkever lived there for many years and the city was once a hotbed of Yiddish cultural activity, due to the influx of Yiddish-speaking immigrants who settled there after the Holocaust.
The street-naming ceremony was attended by the Mayor of Netanya, Avi Slama; representatives of the Lithuanian Embassy; public figures, artists, and members of the family, including Sutzkever’s granddaughter, Hadas Kalderon.
In the past decade, Kalderon has been instrumental in keeping Abraham Sutzkever’s memory alive, most notably through two documentary films: Ver Vet Blaybn? (Who Will Remain?) in 2021, and Black Honey: The Life and Poetry of Avraham Sutzkever in 2018.
Kalderon told me that she was very moved by Netanya’s decision to name the street after her grandfather, in a garden overlooking the Mediterranean Sea. “It was not only a tribute to Sutzkever himself, but also a powerful moment of recognition for Yiddish language and culture within the State of Israel,” she said.
The post Israel names a street after renowned Yiddish poet Abraham Sutzkever appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
At the dawn of the World Cup, the story of the Jews who helped bring soccer to America
When the North American FIFA World Cup starts in Mexico City on June 11, the story will largely be told through the familiar lenses of Lionel Messi, the geography of the 48 participants and three hosts, and — because 75% of the games will be played there — the continuing rise of soccer in the United States. But there is another, less familiar story woven through the tournament: the long, strange and often overlooked history of Jews in North American soccer.
Mostly that’s been in the United States where players and owners have included a larger proportion of Jews than in Canada and Mexico. By my count, no Jewish players have represented Mexico, and only two Jewish men have represented Canada at senior international level and one of them, Tomer Chencinski, only did so once, in a friendly game where Canada lost 2-0 to Belarus in Doha. (Daniel Haber played 5 international games in his career).
For whatever reason, whether more closely linked to Europe, denied entry to other sports, or just arbiters of excellent taste, Jewish Americans have been at the forefront of soccer in the United States for over a century. The first American to play for a major European team was Eddy Hamel for Ajax Amsterdam in 1922. Hamel was a New York-born winger who became a star for Ajax in Amsterdam during the 1920s. An injury forced his retirement in the 1930s and, after the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, he was deported and murdered at Auschwitz in 1943. His story remains one of the most tragic intersections of Jewish history and world football.
Jews also comprised the largest soccer crowd in America when 46,000 New Yorkers watched Hakoach Vienna play New York All Stars in 1926. That record stood for over 50 years but it also encouraged a number of members of the Hakoach team to emigrate to the US and start a New York team that was a crucial part of the American Soccer League of the era.
Later, in the 1970s, the National American Soccer League — the glitzy NASL — became a success thanks to the glamorous New York Cosmos. As head of Warner Communications, their CEO Steve Ross, born Rechnitz, was the person who brought Pele over and made the league the star-studded affair it became. After Herman Sarkowsky co-founded the Seattle Sounders, the continent was almost ready for football.
When the NASL faded and folded, soccer dwindled as a major sport in the United States. Alan Rothenberg saw an opportunity to revive the sport by hosting the 1994 World Cup and founding the MLS as a reset. As president of the U.S. Soccer Federation and the chief executive of the World Cup USA 1994 organizing committee, he made both of those happen and laid the foundations for the current shape of U.S. soccer.
The success of the MLS was not a foregone conclusion, though; indeed, it barely survived to the millennium. It was founded in 1993 but only started playing in 1996 — losing an estimated $350 million between its founding and 2004. The league initially turned to Don Garber, a former NFL executive, in August 1999 but even he couldn’t turn it around. By late 2001, it looked like the league would fold like its predecessors but it was able to secure new financing from owners Lamar Hunt, Philip Anschutz, and the Kraft family to take on more teams. Over the past 20 years, it has become robust, enjoying the general boom of all things soccer, riding the coattails of the English Premier League.
Without Robert Kraft and Anschutz, Major League Soccer might not exist today. During the league’s precarious early years, the two billionaire owners absorbed enormous losses to keep the fledgling competition alive. Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, was also a central figure in bringing the 2026 World Cup to North America. As chairman of the United Bid Committee, he played a crucial role in securing the tournament for the United States, Canada and Mexico.
If Kraft represents one side of the Jewish soccer story, Chuck Blazer represents another.
The larger-than-life American soccer executive helped expose corruption inside FIFA, serving as a key witness in the investigations that ultimately toppled some of the most powerful figures in world football. Yet Blazer was a product of the very system he later helped unravel. His spectacular rise and fall remains one of the strangest chapters in soccer history, a tale of luxury apartments, exotic pets and global corruption.
Unlike baseball, basketball or boxing, soccer never became known as a major arena of Jewish achievement in the United States. Perhaps that has been due to the historic lack of status for soccer in the country. Despite the excellence of Yael Averbuch West for the USWNT and a number of Jewish players for the USMNT including Jonathan Bornstein, Benny Feilhaber, Dan Calichman, DeAndre Yedlin, Kyle Beckerman and the maverick Yari Alnutt there have been no soccer equivalents of Sandy Koufax or Hank Greenberg.
The stalwart defender Jeff “Goose” Agoos came closest with 134 international appearances and six more for the U.S. soccer Olympic team. But playing with a mediocre USMNT, he enjoyed few legendary moments. In fact, arguably no professional moments outshone the bizarre story of his 1989 NCAA championship ring in his junior year, the season that he played in the Maccabiah. On Dec. 3 of that year, his Virginia Cavalier team (playing for future USMNT coach Bruce Arena) met the top ranked, undefeated Santa Clara team in a freezing cold stadium in Piscataway, N.J. The teams were still tied 1-1 after FOUR overtimes and, with no penalties on the books, they shared the spoils. It was the third time that two teams shared the championship and has never happened again.
This year’s USMNT squad does include the only Jewish player at this summer’s tournament — reserve goalkeeper Matt Turner. If, as coach Mauricio Pochettino plans, Turner exclusively warms the bench, he will take his place alongside many of America’s notable Jewish soccer figures who have furthered the game, even if not on the field.
The post At the dawn of the World Cup, the story of the Jews who helped bring soccer to America appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘Remember the Liberty’ has become code for ‘Israel Is Evil’
The first tragedy of the U.S.S. Liberty attack is that it happened at all. The second is that Israel’s critics have weaponized it to spread hate.
When Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky stood on the House floor on June 8, the 59th anniversary of the attack, and called for a Congressional probe into the incident, he wasn’t seriously trying to bring the truth of some long-buried historical secret to light. Massie, who in 14 years never once brought up the U.S.S. Liberty on the House floor, was using the latest cudgel in the Israel-haters’ arsenal to level one last official blow at a country he loathes.
“I’ve got a call to action for everybody here,” said Massie, speaking of attack survivors who were in the audience, “Honor these individuals. Quit ignoring that they exist. Let’s have an investigation. It’s long overdue.”
Let’s put aside the fact that there have been numerous official investigations into what exactly happened on June 8, 1967, the second day of the Six Day War, when Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the Liberty off the Sinai Peninsula, killing 34 American service members.
These investigations concluded that the tragedy was a friendly-fire incident. The Israelis initially mistook the Liberty, an intelligence-gathering vessel, for an Egyptian warship. After the smoke cleared, they accepted responsibility, apologized and paid $12 million in compensation to the victims.
Of all the explanations, it’s perhaps the least satisfying but the most logical. During the Vietnam War, happening at the same time, an estimated 11% to 15% of casualties were from friendly fire.
Massie’s call for a new investigation would be more believable if he then didn’t go on to recite the alternative one-sided narrative of the incident long pushed by some survivors and now taken up with gusto by Israel haters Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and others.
To them the attack was deliberate: The Israelis ignored the large American flag the Liberty was flying and began shooting.
“It was intentional murder by the country of Israel,” said Massie on the House floor, “either as a false flag operation or because they simply didn’t want anybody observing what they were doing that day.”
What Massie and his fellow conspiracy theorists are alleging is a crime, but none of them has sufficiently proven a motive. Why would Israel attack the ship of its most important and powerful ally?
The false flag theory — the idea that Israel wanted to sink the Liberty, blame Egypt or the Soviet Union for it and draw America into the war — makes no sense.
The war was all but won by June 8. Moreover, as the historian and former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren relates in Six Days of War, the Israelis actually stopped firing initially when they suspected the ship was American.
The Israelis sent helicopters to investigate, but heavy smoke obscured the ship. Meanwhile, as Israeli torpedo boats closed in, a U.S. Navy crewman, perhaps not hearing his commander’s orders, opened fire.
The Israelis, now convinced it was an enemy ship, unleashed torpedoes, killing 25 Americans.
Massie left all this out of his narrative. He quoted then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who said at the time, “the attack was, quite literally incomprehensible,” implying that a murky conspiracy underlay it all.
But he didn’t include the rest of what Rusk said: That what happened was “an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.”
In other words, Rusk’s full quote doesn’t suggest intention, but gross carelessness, which is a far cry from premeditated murder. It was chaos, miscommunication, uncertainty, incompetence, fear — the fog of war.
But to Massie and others, there’s no need to establish a coherent motive for why Israel attacked its harmless friends, because in their minds that’s just who Israelis are.
If Massie wants another investigation, fine. But I find it hard to believe that any investigation that doesn’t find Israel guilty of murder in the first will ever satisfy him or the people for whom “Remember the Liberty” is shorthand for “Israel is evil.”
The post ‘Remember the Liberty’ has become code for ‘Israel Is Evil’ appeared first on The Forward.
