Uncategorized
‘We have to be here fighting’: Deborah Lipstadt opens up on her Poland-Germany trip with Douglas Emhoff
BERLIN (JTA) — Second gentleman Douglas Emhoff made headlines late last month during a trip to Europe, where he met with other foreign leaders working to combat antisemitism and returned to his ancestors’ town in Poland.
But the trip was originally Deborah Lipstadt’s mission.
The historian, an authority on Holocaust issues and now the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, had planned to go to Krakow and Berlin on behalf of the Biden-Harris administration. The trip included a visit to the memorial and museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau on the 78th anniversary of the death camp’s liberation by Soviet troops and, in Berlin, a meeting with special envoys and coordinators who, like Lipstadt, are charged with the task of countering hatred against Jews.
The itinerary fit perfectly with Emhoff’s own anti-antisemitism campaign, so he asked Lipstadt late last year if he could come along.
As she reflected in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency after returning home, Emhoff was not the only one to get emotional on the trip.
This interview has been lightly condensed and edited for clarity.
JTA: You met with special envoys on antisemitism from other countries, as you and Emhoff continue to work on a national plan to fight antisemitism at home. Did any concrete policy suggestions come out of those meetings?
DL: The meeting with the special envoys on antisemitism now is the third meeting we have had together.
But I think it was very important to send the message that we are all government appointees, and we speak government to government. So we have already gotten into that rhythm, and it was a very useful meeting. It was also a useful meeting because there were people there from the White House, from my staff, who are involved in this interagency process, and they got to hear from the people who are composing, writing, who have written national plans. And I think that was very helpful. So it was one of the most productive meetings.
You also attended an interfaith meeting with Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim participants, hosted by the Central Council of Jews in Germany in Berlin. What came out of that?
That actually went very well. The groups tended to talk about what they do together. …One of the things I urged the group, and it may have been bringing coals to Newcastle, but it is a sort of a new effort on their part… is that [talking about things that affect multiple faiths] is a good way of building relations. For instance, [my office had] a meeting in October, convened by the EU but with very strong support from the State Department, from my office, on ritual slaughter. Which of course affects both Jews and Muslims, kashrut and halal. So here is a tachles [goal], a brass tacks area which we could work on together. And that was an excellent meeting, a whole day at the EU.
What do you see as the main challenges in fighting antisemitism and hate today?
You know, some people say this is just like the 1930s. It is not. Back then, you had government-sponsored antisemitism. Whether it was Germany, whether it was other countries, even in the United States. We didn’t have government sponsored antisemitism, but there was a failure of the [U.S.] government [to respond].
On Monday morning, we were sitting in Topography of Terror [Berlin’s museum and archive on the history of the Gestapo], and it was government officials discussing “how do we fight antisemitism?” And everybody around that table is paid by the government. They are government officials, officially appointed. That’s a big difference. That is a humongous difference. That is a sea change.
And then we had the second gentleman there who could easily have said, “We came into office, we put a mezuzah up at our residence. We had a Chanukah party, a Rosh Hashanah party, we had a seder…” [Instead, it] is really clear that he has taken to this issue. He has really said it a number of times… and his wife [Vice President Kamala Harris] says, “He didn’t find this issue. This issue found him.”
RELATED: We’re visiting Auschwitz because the fight against antisemitism didn’t end with liberation
On the first day I met him, which was before I was sworn into office, he said he wanted to meet me and I spent some time with him. He said, “I want to work with you.” And then in October, we had a sukkah event at Blair House [the state guest house], where the State Department brought a sukkah, and we invited ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission from Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority countries. So sitting around the table were the Israeli ambassador, the Turkish ambassador, the Pakistan ambassador, the deputy chief of mission from Qatar, the deputy chief of mission from Saudi Arabia… And [the Second Gentleman] and I were standing in the kitchen waiting to be escorted into the room, when people took their seats. And he said to me, “Deborah, where are you traveling, where are you going?” I said “Well, in January I am going to Auschwitz-Birkenau for the 27th.” And he said “I’m in.” And that’s how it happened.
You have been to Auschwitz many times…
Dozens of times, I can’t keep count. You know I have been many times, but I work very hard so that it never becomes de rigeur. That it becomes “min haminyan” as you would say in Hebrew. … All you have to do is remind yourself of what happened there. And so it doesn’t matter if it’s your first time or your 15th time. If you are cognizant of what happened there, it sits with you.
…When I go to Auschwitz, especially when it was around my trial [after being sued by British writer David Irving for calling him a Holocaust denier], I had to look at things in a very forensic way, you know: How do we prove this, how do we show that. And that of course sits with me still. But I was well aware that this was [Emhoff’s] first time and what an emotional impact this was having on him. … The thing that always strikes me about Auschwitz, the thing that you hear resounding in your ears in a thunderous way, is the silence. The absence. The little kid that would have worn the shoes that you saw in the display. The people who wore the eyeglasses. The men who shaved with that shaving stuff.
So that is always there. And it hits me at moments and then I become the historian. Analyzing. But it was very powerful, and what was also powerful was, in a way, though this seems counterintuitive, going to Poland first, which was just laden with emotion, especially for him, he went to the town where his family comes from, and got a lot of information. And then going to Germany. One would have thought, go to Germany first and then go to Poland, but in a way the emotional part became the backdrop for the business meetings in Germany.
[Emhoff] very kindly at one point described me as his mentor. Well, if I am his mentor, he is an A1 student. He is really intent on showing not just his passion about the issue but in learning about the issue. He is an accomplished lawyer, an experienced lawyer, and he knows that feeling is not enough, you’ve got to have information, and he gathered that every place he went.
Do you really have the feeling that antisemitism is on the rise or is it just more acceptable to express it?
I think both. I am not out there crunching the numbers statistically, but certainly it is more acceptable. Certainly, it is increasingly normalized. Whether it’s among comedians, whether it is articles in the newspaper, whether it is at demonstrations, it is increasingly normal. And even becomes fodder for entertainers. So whether those same people felt the same before and didn’t say anything or they now suddenly feel that, I don’t know. But many people who might otherwise have been more reticent about expressing certain things previously seem to feel freer to say antisemitic things now.
If antisemitism keeps coming back, what gives you hope?
First of all, what gives me hope, what gives me strength, is I know what I am fighting for, I am not just fighting against. I have a very strong sense of my Jewish identity, I have a very strong sense of who I am, Jewishly. I am lucky, I had a great education, etc.
Earlier this year, I guess it was September, the president did a phone call, it was his practice during the vice presidency, before Rosh Hashanah, or between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, to do a phone call with — this time I think it was 1,200 rabbis. And I came along after he spoke with them to answer questions. And one of the questions was what gives me joy and what gives me strength. And what I said to the rabbis was that I never want to become a “because of antisemitism Jew.” Driving me out of the woodwork because everyone dislikes me, hates me, or wants to harm me. Not everyone — but there are people who want to harm me.
On Monday when I was at all those meetings [in Berlin], it was Jan. 30, 90 years after Hitler came to power, right there where we were standing. Not far from there people were marching in the streets with tiki torches! Championing among other things “death to the Jews.”
And here we were, back: Yes, the good news is here we are back, openly talking about fighting [antisemitism], here we are back, government officials tasked with fighting it, someone at the ambassadorial level from my country, the second gentleman, anxious to help in this effort, but nonetheless we were back there fighting. So on one hand, you can say, “Great, we have the special envoy, great we have the second gentleman who was so open to taking this on. This is unbelievable.” But we are here fighting. We have to be here fighting.
What was your most memorable experience from the recent trip?
On Saturday night [in Poland], one of the members of the White House staff that was with us after Shabbos had hired a car to go to the little village, shtetl, whatever, that her family came from. She wanted to go to the cemetery to see if she could find any names. Now the chances of her finding the names, in the daylight, when it is 70 degrees out and comfortable [would be hard enough]. Here it was below freezing, snow was falling, the ground was icy, and it was pitch black. We were with a genealogist, but the cemetery was locked. So we thought we would have to climb the fences. I thought, “Oh my God, we are going to have an international incident!” But our driver got the key to the cemetery from the people across the street, and I asked, “How did you know?” And he said, “The people across the street always have the key.”
So we didn’t have to break in. She wanted to say a prayer, and she was totally capable of saying the prayer herself but obviously she was deeply moved, and she asked me to recite the “El Maleh Rachamim” [prayer for the soul of a person who has died] for her. And when I stopped, she gave all the names of the people, many of whom were buried there but we couldn’t find the exact places. And then I said “shenikberu” [“who is buried here”], and the person holding the flashlight for me, I couldn’t see, it was tiny print, and he’s Israeli, he said, “po.” Here, here, here! I had never said an “El Maleh Rachamim” for people who were caught up in this tragedy, here. In situ. It was very powerful.
And then on the 30th [in Berlin] after our special envoy meeting, we all walked over to the [city’s] Holocaust memorial. And Felix [Klein, Germany’s special commissioner on antisemitism and Jewish life] had brought stones. And we were standing there, and to borrow a phrase from Herman Wouk’s “The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial,” there was this pregnant pause. And I said, “Would you like me to recite a prayer?” And I recited the prayer, another “El Maleh Rachamim,” and I became totally verklempt [overcome with emotion]. Because I was just a 12-minute walk, if that long, from where it was planned and carried out, and that was very powerful as well.
So the trip was pregnant with meaning, but I think more than just meaning, hopefully also impact.
—
The post ‘We have to be here fighting’: Deborah Lipstadt opens up on her Poland-Germany trip with Douglas Emhoff appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israeli Report Sounds Alarm Over ‘America Only’ Faction Influencing US Right
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism has published a new report warning of a high-stakes schism among US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement propelled by an “America Only” alliance known for advancing antisemitic invective.
“The picture emerging from the report is concerning: Alongside significant American support for the war against the Iranian terror regime, a discourse is expanding in the US that attempts to present Israel as acting manipulatively, as if it dragged the US into war,” Amichai Chikli, minister for diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, said in a statement announcing the research.
“This is a dangerous discourse that often devolves from political and diplomatic criticism into conspiratorial rhetoric with a sharp antisemitic aroma,” he continued. “Our role is to identify these trends in time, alert people to them, and act together with our partners to understand deep-seated trends and know how to prepare and respond to them.”
Avi Cohen-Scali, the government ministry’s director general, added that “we identify an increasingly tightening connection between internal political debate in the US and the dissemination of anti-Israel and antisemitic messages online.”
The report, released on Thursday, analyzes the public sentiment of Republicans and conservatives regarding the US-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic regime in Iran. It defines two alliances on the American political right which have voiced opposition to the joint strikes: so-called “America First” and “America Only.” The Israeli researchers characterize the former faction as “restraint-oriented,” noting that adherents argue “”the strikes contradict anti-war campaign rhetoric, risk drawing the United States into another prolonged Middle East conflict, and impose economic costs that undermine domestic priorities.”
Advocates of this approach have also advanced narratives around the term “Israel First,” which the report describes as “including antisemitic claims alleging disproportionate Israeli or Jewish influence over US foreign policy, as well as slogans such as ‘dying for Israel’ that frame the war as serving foreign rather than American interests.”
The report names and profiles three prominent podcasters it identifies with this mentality: Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Joe Rogan, as well as streamer Sneako (Nicolas Kenn De Balinthazy).
In contrast, the Israeli researchers name “a more radical fringe, sometimes referred to as ‘America Only,’ which promotes extreme isolationism combined with conspiratorial, white nationalist, and antisemitic narratives.”
In this category, the report offers six profiles, leading with former US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who features “America Only” in her descriptor and banner on her X social media account where she routinely shares her views with 1.6 million followers. The report notes five others and includes data about their followings on billionaire Elon Musk’s X website: white nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes (1.3 million), former mixed martial arts fighter Jake Shields (over 900,000), British-American influencer Sam Parker (over 300,000), neo-Nazi Lucas Gage (over 286,000 but now blocked), and radio host Stew Peters (over 900,000).
According to the report, “the core distinction between right-wing populists (America First) and white nationalists (America Only) lies in how they define the in-group.”
While America First advocates “emphasize culture, nativism, and hostility toward elites,” those in America Only “place race and ancestry at the center of their worldview and openly support either the maintenance or restoration of white dominance. Their ideology prioritizes the preservation of ‘ethnic purity’ and often rests on explicit racial doctrines that can also shape their positions on foreign and international policy.”
Researchers describe how these voices “play a central role in shaping discourse, particularly among younger audiences, amplifying anti-war messaging and framing the conflict as misaligned with American interests.”
Noting that polls show Republican support for the war with Iran is limited with voters expressing caution about sending soldiers back to the Middle East, the report says that “divisions within conservative media and among some Republican figures, particularly within ‘America First’ and ‘America Only’ circles, indicate that support could weaken if the conflict becomes prolonged, expands operationally, or imposes sustained economic costs.”
These divisions do not remain in the domestic sphere. The ministry describes how pro-Iran networks “amplify narratives of American opposition to the conflict to deepen perceived divisions. These trends may have implications for Jewish and Israeli communities in the United States, particularly in relation to the risk of increased antisemitic discourse and incidents.”
The report cites polling showing a collapse of the American public’s sympathy for Israel (down to 36 percent, according to a recent Gallup survey) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with – for the first time ever – more Americans now aligning with the Palestinians (41 percent). This has flipped from February 2025 when 46 percent stood with the Jewish state and 33 percent supported the Palestinians.
While most of this rising anti-Israel sentiment has grown among Democrats, the report notes that “among Republicans, the same tendencies are evident to some degree, but the changes are significantly smaller. Among Republicans, sympathy for Israel decreased from 80 percent in 2021 to 70 percent in 2026, while sympathy for Palestinians edged up from 10 percent to 13 percent.”
A survey of 1092 people conducted from March 26-30, released on Thursday by YouGov and the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, offers further illumination about the potential levels of American enthusiasm for these ideologies.
Asked whether the close US-Israel alliance does more to help or harm the American national interest, 42 percent said more to hurt, 29 percent said more to help, and 29 percent said neither. Among Republicans those figures were 23 percent more to hurt, 52 percent more to help, and 24 percent neither.
Analyzing the survey results, CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake shared data and noted that “Tucker Carlson isn’t that popular among Republican-leaners anymore,” with 31 percent having a favorable opinion compared to 24 percent unfavorable. Overall, 38 percent of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of him, compared to 17 percent favorable.
Even among Carlson’s heaviest bloc of backers – self-identified conservatives — the former Fox host showed limited support. While 34 percent of conservatives expressed a favorable opinion, 26 percent affirmed “unfavorable,” 31 percent offered no opinion at all, and 10 percent had never heard of him. Meanwhile, the poll showed that 7 percent of Democrats and self-described liberals expressed favorable views.
The pollsters also researched how Carlson would potentially fare against California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), two widely floated potential Democratic presidential candidates, in the 2028 contest.
Head-to-head with the California leader, 25 percent of voters would support Carlson, while 33 percent would vote for Newsom and 20 percent would refuse to vote. Two percent of Democrats said they would back Carlson while six percent of Republicans said they would vote for Newsom, as did 7 percent of conservatives.
Up against Ocasio-Cortez, the numbers remained similar with 25 percent saying they would support Carlson and 32 percent backing the leader behind the so-called “squad” of left-wing congressional representatives.
Many observers in the media have speculated that Carlson could run for president in 2028.
Uncategorized
Antisemitic Social Media Personality Dan Bilzerian Launches Longshot US Congressional Bid Against Randy Fine
Dan Bilzerian arrives at the Fashion Nova x Cardi B Collection Launch Party held at the Hollywood Palladium on May 8, 2019, in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, United States. Photo: Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
Antisemitic social media personality Dan Bilzerian launched a bid for the US Congress this week, setting off a firestorm of controversy as he seeks to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Randy Fine in Florida’s 6th Congressional District, a race already defined by personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.
Bilzerian, who grew a massive social media presence by showcasing his hedonistic lifestyle, formally filed paperwork on Tuesday to run as a Republican, challenging Fine in what is shaping up to be one of the most unconventional GOP primaries of the 2026 election cycle.
During an interview with TMZ this week, Bilzerian was confronted over his previous comments referring to Fine as a “fat Jew.” He responded by condemning Fine as a “Jewish supremacist and he puts Israel ahead of America, and I think that, you know, he should be tried for treason.” Bilzerian also dismissed antisemitism as a “made-up term.”
“I think we just have a big Jewish supremacy problem in the country, and everyone’s talking about it, and nobody’s doing anything about it,” he told the Daytona Beach News-Journal in a separate interview, echoing a message he has previously posted on social media.
The remarks drew swift backlash online and placed Bilzerian’s candidacy under intense scrutiny, raising questions about the viability of the campaign.
Fine responded forcefully, arguing that Bilzerian’s comments were not accidental but reflective of deeper hostility. He said the rhetoric demonstrated that his challenger is unfit for public office and outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse.
“This isn’t about disagreement,” Fine said in a media appearance. “It’s about whether someone who speaks this way about an entire group of people belongs anywhere near Congress.”
Fine responded directly to Bilzerian’s condemnations, suggesting to TMZ that the social media provocateur views the Jewish religion “as some sort of negative thing.”
During the TMZ discussion, Bilzerian also used the n-word, comments which drew sharp criticism from Fine.
“It’s my view that anyone who can use that word so easily, probably uses it in their everyday language and that’s not a word that I believe has any place in the Republican party and I’m not interested in platforming it,” Fine said.
The congressman has pledged not to back down and also touted his close ties to US President Donald Trump.
“Congressman Randy Fine is the only person in America that President Trump has endorsed three times in the past two years, including in his current reelection,” a spokesperson for the lawmaker told The Hill, describing the Florida Republican is one of Trump’s “greatest allies.”
“Randy Fine will never back down in the face of any effort to impeach President Trump and obstruct the will of the American people,” the spokesperson added.
The clash has highlighted the unusually combative tone of the race. While Fine has positioned himself as a mainstream conservative with strong ties to Trump, he is no stranger to controversy himself. Critics have previously pointed to his own inflammatory statements about Muslims and Palestinians, which resurfaced in recent interviews as the campaign feud intensified.
Fine has repeatedly justified Islamophobia as “rational” rather than a form of bigotry.
“We need more Islamophobia, not less. Fear of Islam is rational,” Fine wrote on X.
He has warned about the “Islamification of America” and cautioned that the growing influence of Islam could lead to the banning of pet dogs.
“If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one,” Fine posted on X.
Despite weathering a bevy of controversies, Fine has sought to reinforce his standing with conservative voters. He announced this week that he is joining the House Freedom Caucus, a move that underscores his alignment with the GOP’s most conservative faction and signals an effort to consolidate support ahead of the primary.
Despite the backlash, Bilzerian has not backed down. He has insisted that his remarks are being mischaracterized and has continued to attack Fine on social media.
In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, Bilzerian transformed his public image from a social media provocateur to a prominent critic of Israel and Judaism writ large.
Bilzerian has engaged in Holocaust denial, saying during an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan that casualty figures of the genocide have been “revised” and he “would bet [his] entire net worth that it was under 6 million.” He has also declared that “Jewish supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today” and denied that Jews experience antisemitism in any meaningful way, asserting that Palestinians are “the real semites.” Bilzerian has also parroted the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Israel orchestrated the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy and claimed that the Israeli government also killed Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
“I wasn’t there, but everything I’ve seen, evidence-wise, points to Israel,” Bilzerian said.
For now, the race remains heavily tilted in Fine’s favor, given his incumbency, established political track-record, and close relationship with Trump.
Bilzerian, a Florida native, currently resides in Las Vegas, Nevada and possesses no political experience. His repeated antisemitic and anti-Israel commentary is likely to serve as a liability in a conservative district with a significant Jewish population.
Uncategorized
42 Jewish authors slam Jewish Book Council for ‘bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices’
(JTA) — Dozens of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish authors are criticizing the Jewish Book Council, a historic literary group, for what they said was a “bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices” and “narrowing its vision to a Zionist approach to Jewish culture.”
A new open letter signed by 42 authors argues that the council, which was founded in 1925, should commit itself more to spotlighting Jewish voices who disagree with traditional Zionism and should not have showcased Israeli and Zionist voices after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.
“Because the JBC is our most visible and longstanding Jewish literary institution, its focus on Zionist authors and books gives both Jewish and non-Jewish readers the false impression that Jewish books are inherently Zionist,” the open letter, published Thursday by “a Concerned Group of Jewish Writers,” argues.
Notable signatories include Israeli-Dutch novelist Yael van der Wouden, whose 2024 debut “The Safekeep,” a Jewish LGBTQ romance set in postwar Amsterdam, was shortlisted for a Booker Prize and won an award from the Jewish Book Council; memoirist Qian Julie Wang, whose book “Beautiful Country” was a New York Times bestseller, recommended by former President Barack Obama and winner of an award given by the council; novelist Adelle Waldman, author of “Help Wanted”; and Michael David Lukas, a professor at San Francisco State University and past winner of both the National Jewish Book Award and Jewish literature’s prestigious Sami Rohr prize for his 2018 novel “The Last Watchman of Old Cairo.”
Yael van der Wouden, winner of the 2025 Women’s Prize for Fiction, during The Women’s Prize Trust Summer Party & Awards Ceremony 2025 at Bedford Square Gardens on June 12, 2025 in London, England. (David Levenson/Getty Images)
The Jewish Book Council was founded to support and award Jewish authors and topics. In addition to handing out the annual National Jewish Book Awards, the council also connects authors with Jewish speaking engagements, publishes reviews of Jewish books, and provides other forms of support. In 2024, after a list purporting to expose “Zionist” authors circulated online, the council launched a hotline to report antisemitism in the books world.
The council’s CEO, Naomi Firestone-Teeter, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the letter represented a “difference in expectations” about what the institution can stand for.
The authors said they initially contacted the council’s leadership in private last year, engaging in a dialogue over a list of specific concerns. Those included the council’s failure to define antisemitism in its reporting tool, as well as its stated support of Israel and Israeli authors in recent awards ceremonies.
The authors also urged the council to state that criticism of Israel “is not inherently antisemitic,” and to “create programs and content in the coming year that reflect a more genuine diversity of Jewish views on Israel/Palestine and create spaces for Jews and cultural workers engaged with Judaism to have these difficult conversations.”
When the council didn’t follow up on their requests, the authors claimed, they decided to take their letter public. “We were—and remain—concerned that the institution’s apparent bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices is not only exclusionary but harmful, contributing to the dehumanization of Palestinians and advancing a system of cultural apartheid,” they wrote.
The open letter was the latest salvo in a series of dust-ups about Jews and Israel throughout the book world. Literary free-speech organization PEN America, after months of protest over its perceived Zionist tilt, this year replaced its leadership and retracted a statement standing in solidarity with an Israeli comedian whose performances had been cancelled. Bestselling authors have called to boycott Israeli literary institutions, and Guernica magazine experienced an internal upheaval after publishing an essay about the Gaza war by an Israeli writer arguing for coexistence.
The Jewish Book Council, however, had not experienced much public pushback from within its ranks of authors, until now.
“What the open letter is reflecting is a difference in expectations about our role as an institution, not a lack of engagement,” Firestone-Teeter told JTA. “Our role is to be a platform for literary exchange. We’re not a political advocacy group.”
Firestone-Teeter said that, contrary to the authors’ claims that the council had failed to follow up on their requests, she had “engaged in good faith” and made the council’s position clear to them. She said she disagreed with their assessment that the council deprioritizes Jews who are critical of Israel.
“You will see the diversity of the Jewish community represented, including some of these voices,” she said. “Jews are not a monolith. Our writers write with a lot of nuance, a lot of complexity.”
She also defended the council’s decision not to narrowly define antisemitism for its hotline, noting that they received hundreds of antisemitism reports and that different authors have different ideas of what constitutes antisemitism. The council intends to analyze the data it received. “We have not used the tool to take punitive action,” Firestone-Teeter said.
In addition, she said, it was appropriate for the council to spotlight Israeli authors after Oct. 7. “We are an organization that supports Jewish authors in America, Israel and beyond. Israel is a key part of our efforts to support the Jewish community,” she said. “Our Israeli authors represent a very wide range of views, politically and otherwise.”
Despite the authors’ objections, Firestone-Teeter told JTA, the council still considered them part of its constituency: “These are Jewish authors.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post 42 Jewish authors slam Jewish Book Council for ‘bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices’ appeared first on The Forward.