Uncategorized
What can really be done to prevent antisemitic attacks like Bondi Beach?
In the wake of the horrific antisemitic attack in Sydney, Australia, many have called for a stronger response to antisemitism – in Australia and elsewhere – and for us to do more to combat it.
But what would that actually mean in practice? This is not an easy question to answer.
Arguably, the first step in treating an illness is to diagnose it as precisely as possible, with as much objectivity as possible. Yet the demands of reason and those of emotion are at odds with one another. There is a visceral appeal in refusing to go beyond the act of violence itself. Jews were targeted “just for being Jews,” we are told. Antisemitism is purely bigotry – a blind, timeless hatred that has existed since time immemorial.
Lately, this view has been called “Judeo-Pessimism,” since it holds out no hope for change. If antisemitism is an eternal, constant, baseless hatred of Jews across time and space, for any reason or none at all, it can never be eradicated and must only be met with force. That is pessimistic indeed.
Fortunately, as emotionally resonant as this account may be, it flies in the face of the available evidence.
The father-son murderers, Sajid and Naveed Akram, have known links to ISIS. And, according to Israeli intelligence sources, ISIS has released several statements explicitly calling for attacks against Christians and Jews in revenge for Gaza, which it describes as but the latest spasm of violence directed against Muslims by the West (Christians as well as Jews), like others in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sinai, and Yemen.
So, the Sydney attack was both antisemitic and anti-Israel in nature; it punished innocent Jews for Israel’s perceived sins, as if attendees at a Chabad Hanukkah celebration are culpable for (or even supported) the war in Gaza. (The attacks outside a Manchester synagogue in October were similarly motivated.)
But once again, precision is needed. Some pundits and Jewish leaders – Bret Stephens, David Frum, Deborah Lipstadt – have rushed in to insist that this attack is what people mean by “Globalize the Intifada,” the infamous cri de coeur of some Palestinian protesters.
Not likely. In fact, ISIS and Hamas loathe one another – so much so that there was even a conspiracy theory among Gazans that ISIS was secretly being supported by Israel and the United States, in part because it prioritized the fight against Syria over the fight against Israel. ISIS also opposes Palestinian nationalism (and thus the Intifada) because they seek to unite the entire Muslim world in a single umma governed by Islamic Law (and by their own clerics). ISIS has no interest in the Intifada, globalized or otherwise. Nor, of course, does an ISIS-affiliating terrorist care what American campus activists or mayor-elect have to say.
The takeaway: Don’t believe anyone who says that a terrorist attack confirms their prior beliefs.
In light of how little we presently know about the motivations for this attack, what can be done?
The most obvious answer is increased law enforcement. In this case, Australia was already doing a lot: Jewish institutions already had beefed-up security in place, in part paid for by public funds; Australia has strict gun laws; and when antisemitic incidents took place over the last year, Australia’s prime minister and other officials have made strong, unequivocal statements condemning them.
But antisemitic violence has been escalating there in recent years – a synagogue was nearly burned down a year ago – and many have complained that Australia has not taken the threat seriously enough. If that is true (and presumably there will be an investigation), then obviously, the government must do better.
But Jews cannot Security ourselves into absolute safety. Law enforcement can’t protect everyone everywhere, or stop all hate speech everywhere. There are bigots everywhere and nowhere today, especially online, and the few global actors who could really prevent hate speech from spreading – the tech companies – have flatly stated that they will be doing so less in the future, not more. (If anyone deserves public pressure, it is surely them.)
But if law enforcement alone can’t solve this problem, what else can help?
I admit that my answer may seem a little idealistic. But given that an Australian Muslim, Ahmed al Ahmed, has emerged as a hero of this story, perhaps it’s worth remembering that while there may be hundreds of thousands of ISIS or Hamas supporters, there are two billion Muslims in the world and they hold a wide range of beliefs. Imagine if a thousand imams and other religious leaders denounced the attack in Sydney, or if pro-Palestinian activists voiced support for the Palestinian struggle for liberation and opposition to the targeting of any civilians anywhere.
Contrary to what the Sam Harrises of the world say, these voices do exist. I know some of them myself, and there are many with large followings. Here’s Mo Husseini, for example, responding to Sydney:
View on Threads
But does the Trump administration, or the American Jewish establishment, do anything to help them? Quite the contrary. Pro-Palestinian activists (and even some liberal Zionists) are condemned, cancelled, doxxed, ridiculed, trolled, labeled as bigots, and even threatened with deportation. Moderate Palestinians are endlessly undermined by right-wing Israeli governments, who make them look foolish by expanding settlements, allowing settlers to run amok in the West Bank with impunity, and placing roadblocks in the way of Palestinian commercial and residential development.
Meanwhile, here at home, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other figures in the Republican party regularly (including this week) traffic in broad, bigoted generalizations about Muslims, as do, sadly, many in the Jewish community. Consider this repellant diatribe posted by Rep. Randy Fine of Florida after the Sydney attack:
A few weeks ago, two National Guardsmen were shot in DC by a Muslim terrorist.
Today, Muslim terrorists killed twelve innocent lives in Australia on the first day of Hanukkah.
How many more times is this going to happen until we wake up?
Islam is not compatible with the…
— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) December 14, 2025
Islam is not compatible with the West? Could we imagine someone condemning all of Christianity for the bigotry of Nick Fuentes? Or all Jews for the racism of Itamar Ben Gvir or the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein?
Of course, that’s just what antisemites do, isn’t it?
If we want relatively moderate Muslims, Palestinians, and pro-Palestinian activists to reduce the appeal of ISIS, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, we have to strengthen their hand against the fundamentalists. But the Israeli and American governments, and much of the Jewish community, have been rushing in the opposite direction for decades now.
When (relatively) moderate Palestinians want to build a new city in the West Bank, Israel should help them, not stand in their way. When extremist Israeli nationalists destroy olive groves and conduct pogroms, we should speak loudly in opposition to them, not pretend it isn’t happening and will hopefully go away. And when Jews have the chance to work together with Muslim leaders with whom we may disagree, we should approach them with open minds, not Mamdani Monitors and incendiary rhetoric about enemies of the Jews.
I am under no illusions. No amount of goodwill is going to erase the reality of the videos and images from Gaza that people watched for two years. Whether or not the carnage in Gaza motivated the Sydney terrorists, the sheer brutality of the war, and the likely war crimes that accompanied it, are a nearly insurmountable obstacle.
It is also true that, as I have written many times before, there is far too much stochastic terrorism on the Left: using the harshest language possible to describe the “enemy,” equating all Jews with Zionists and all Zionists with genociders. And any time Jews are targeted – not just with violence but also with taunts, graffiti or angry protests – the line has been crossed.
But there must at least be some vision for the future. People like Rep. Fine have no hope to offer Jews or Israelis. For one thing, there are four million Muslims in America. Is his proposal to gradually make life so miserable for them that they all emigrate, or somehow decide to befriend their oppressors and make nice? Does that make any sense at all?
I’m under no delusion that moderate voices can prevail over every extremist. But when I see Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, working together in groups like Standing Together, Rabbis for Human Rights, the Sulha Peace project, IfNotNow, Seeds of Peace, and many others, I at least have hope that the feedback loops of Israeli and Palestinian extremism can be interrupted, and that maybe someday the balance might tip. I can at least imagine a world in which the people working for coexistence are supported, rather than stigmatized, prosecuted, and banned from community life.
And even if only for our own sakes, let alone the lives of others, I can imagine a world in which the conditions that cause people to become murderers are less prevalent than they are now. Today, that is the most I can hope for.
The post What can really be done to prevent antisemitic attacks like Bondi Beach? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction in Etan Patz disappearance case
(JTA) — The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a murder conviction for the man convicted of killing Etan Patz, the 6-year-old Jewish boy whose 1979 disappearance riveted the nation.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices reimposed the conviction of Pedro Hernandez, who was found guilty of kidnapping and murdering Patz in 2017 and was serving a 25-year sentence until a New York federal appeals court ruled last year that he was entitled to a retrial.
The justices granted an appeal from New York prosecutors who urged them to overturn the decision last year, writing in an unsigned opinion that the lower court “exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to relief.”
“Today the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of multiple lower courts and upheld the trial conviction of Pedro Hernandez for the horrific murder of Etan Patz, which changed a generation of New Yorkers,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement Monday. “This office has remained steadfast in its pursuit of justice for Etan and the Patz family and will continue to stand by this important conviction.”
Harvey Fishbein, a lawyer for Hernandez, told the The New York Times Monday that the Supreme Court’s order meant Hernandez would not get a new trial, adding that his team was “terribly disappointed.”
“We firmly believe that an innocent man is in jail for a crime that he did not commit,” Fishbein said.
Patz vanished in May 1979 while walking to his school bus stop in New York City for the first time. The 6-year-old became one of the first missing children whose photograph appeared on milk cartons nationwide, but despite years of searches and public appeals, he was never found.
Patz’s parents, Julie and Stan, spent decades seeking an arrest for his disappearance, helping to establish a national missing-children hotline. The anniversary of Etan’s disappearance, May 25, also became National Missing Children’s Day.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction in Etan Patz disappearance case appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Some of Mamdani’s Jewish allies criticize his use of ‘monsters’ to describe AIPAC
(New York Jewish Week) — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday defended his use of the word “monsters” to describe AIPAC at a rally Friday for progressive candidates, as some of his Jewish supporters expressed concern that the term may connote an antisemitic trope.
The war of words came as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is increasingly a target of the progressive movement — including in acts of attempted violence — and as progressive Jews have accused some Israeli right-wing figures of dehumanizing liberal pro-Israel lobbying groups.
“Calling AIPAC and its backers ‘monsters’ casts them as less than human, rather than as human beings who are one’s political opponents,” Rabbi Jill Jacobs, head of the progressive rabbinic human rights group T’ruah, wrote in a Substack post Monday.
“I was taken aback,” Rabbi Misha Shulman, a Mamdani supporter who leads the progressive Brooklyn synagogue The New Shul, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about the mayor’s comments. “I didn’t like those remarks. It was a little bit of a flag for me.”
At a press conference, Mamdani said he had been quoting Italian anti-fascist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, whose quote ending “Now is the time of monsters” the mayor had cited at the top of his speech. The rally was intended to boost the mayor’s preferred progressive candidates, including Jewish congressional candidate Brad Lander, ahead of New York’s closely watched Tuesday primaries.
“I used the term to describe all those who are preventing the birth of a new world,” Mamdani told a reporter who asked about the word. He continued, “My use of the term is a broad use that speaks to the untenable nature of a status quo that is quite literally starving people in this city, all in the name of sustaining something that we simply cannot defend any longer.” He did not explain how he saw AIPAC as connected to poverty in New York.
Mamdani insisted he was referring to “not solely AIPAC,” but he singled out the organization again in his Monday remarks to reporters, saying the lobbying group was backing “a status quo for immorality.”
During the rally last week, Mamdani had stated that Gramsci’s “monsters take many forms today,” including “AIPAC, for whom the only thing more frightening than democracy being allowed to run its course is an end to genocide and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s wars.” He added that AIPAC’s “goal” is “to turn us against one another.”
For some of the progressive Jews who have supported the mayor, his comments sounded alarms about the use of dehumanizing or sinister rhetoric to describe Jewish groups.
But Shulman said it was actually Mamdani’s remarks in the same speech painting AIPAC as a “dark money” group that was most alarming to him. AIPAC, a lobbying organization that also operates a political spending arm, does not conceal its donors, unlike the traditional profile of a so-called “dark money” campaign finance operation.
“For me, the question of dark money was the tougher knot,” Shulman said, calling Mamdani’s remarks a “tactical mistake.” In the context of rising antisemitism, he added, “For a left-wing leader to use that phrase, and invite traditional antisemitism into this conversation in that way, was not smart.”
Shulman is a member of Israelis For Peace, a New York-based ad-hoc group of progressive Israelis who broadly back Mamdani. While not speaking on behalf of the group, he told JTA their internal group chat lit up with debates over the appropriateness of Mamdani’s speech.
Jacobs of T’ruah said Mamdani’s remarks were part of what she described as a “disturbing trend” of recent left-wing attacks on the lobbying group, including Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner accusing his GOP opponent of being “bought and paid for by Benjamin Netanyahu” because of AIPAC’s donations to her campaign.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who has aspirations of higher office, also recently became the first sitting member of Congress to sign a pledge from Track AIPAC, a purported AIPAC watchdog that also targets donations from more liberal pro-Israel groups, including J Street.
Over the weekend, a cafe posted on Instagram that it had rejected a payment from liberal Jewish New York Rep. Dan Goldman, whom Lander is challenging in the primary, because the money was “probably coming from AIPAC.” (Goldman has been endorsed by both AIPAC and J Street.)
While noting that AIPAC “absolutely deserves to be criticized, sidelined, and rejected for its decades of negative influence on American foreign policy,” Jacobs wrote that such critiques should be done “without dehumanizing language, and without hinting at a grand Jewish conspiracy.”
Such pushback from Jews who have worked with Mamdani is rare. JTA reached out to representatives for several of the mayor’s most visible Jewish allies on Monday, including Lander and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who spoke at the same rally. Sanders also criticized AIPAC. Neither returned requests for comment by press time. On social media after the rally, Lander celebrated the event, calling it “a tremendous honor” to rally alongside Mamdani.
IfNotNow and Jews For Racial and Economic Justice, two Jewish activist groups that endorsed Mamdani, similarly did not respond to requests for comment by press time. A spokesperson for Rep. Jerry Nadler, the retiring liberal Jewish Democrat who had endorsed Mamdani’s mayoral bid, also did not respond by press time.
J Street, the liberal pro-Israel lobby that positions itself as a foil to AIPAC, declined to comment on Mamdani’s remarks. Last month, hundreds of Jewish leaders criticized Yehuda Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, after Leiter called J Street a “cancer within the Jewish community.” Nadler was among the signatories of an open letter that said Leiter “dehumanizes fellow Jews.”
Centrist Jewish groups and figures, already no fans of Mamdani, also bashed his AIPAC comments. “Referring to fellow New Yorkers as ‘monsters’ is outrageous and dangerous, and the impact of your words extends far beyond politics,” American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch wrote on X, addressing Mamdani.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Jewish Democrat representing New Jersey, wrote, “Swap ‘AIPAC’ for ‘Jews’ and it’s the oldest antisemitic conspiracy theory in the books.”
Both posts were reposted by AIPAC, which otherwise did not comment.
The post Some of Mamdani’s Jewish allies criticize his use of ‘monsters’ to describe AIPAC appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
U.K. PM Starmer leaves behind mixed record on antisemitism
(JTA) — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who resigned the premiership on Monday, leaves behind a mixed record on fighting antisemitism in the Labour Party that Jewish organizations say will help shape their expectations for his successor.
Starmer announced that he was stepping down outside 10 Downing Street in the morning local time. He made the decision in the wake of mounting pressure from Labour members of Parliament and waning political support after the party’s devastating losses in the May 7 local elections and the success of political rival Andy Burnham in Manchester’s parliamentary election last week.
Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester, has emerged as the leading contender after winning a Manchester-area by-election on Friday with 55% of the vote. Burnham has sought to position himself prominently on antisemitism and relations with the Jewish community in his bid to take over from Starmer.
In a post on X, Burnham thanked Starmer for his leadership and said the PM’s decision to resign “marks the beginning of a transition and it is important that this process is conducted in an orderly and responsible way. I will put myself forward as part of this process.”
Starmer confirmed he would remain on as caretaker prime minister until a successor was chosen.
“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election,” he said. “I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.”
The Jewish Labour Movement thanked Starmer in a post on X, noting that two years ago he inherited the party “at its lowest point” from former party leader Jeremy Corbyn, when it was “institutionally antisemitic.” It added, under Starmer, “our party has a clean bill of health on antisemitism.”
However, Starmer’s tenure was still met with plenty of criticism from the Jewish community over his handling of antisemitism, particularly in light of ongoing antisemitic attacks in the country. In recent months alone, four Hatzola ambulances were lit on fire; there were attempted attacks on three synagogues; two Jewish men in the Orthodox neighborhood of Golders Green were stabbed. Dozens of people have been arrested in connection with the incidents.
Starmer entered office in July 2024, leading his country’s thorny relationship with Israel in the aftermath of the Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attack against the Jewish and the Gaza war that followed. He angered Israel with steps such as recognizing Palestine as a state and promising to uphold the International Court of Justice’s arrest warrant against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes.
With Starmer’s upcoming departure, focus has shifted to the contest to replace him, bringing renewed scrutiny to candidates’ positions on antisemitism, relations with the Jewish community, and Israel.
Starmer said he would give his successor his “full and unequivocal support,” adding that nominations would open on July 9 and conclude before the parliamentary summer recess on July 16.
Board of Deputies of British Jews President Phil Roseneberg posted on X, “When he took on the leadership of the Labour Party the first thing @Keir_Starmer said he would do is ‘tear out the poison of antisemitism by its roots’. His subsequent actions were transformative within the Party.”
He praised Starmer’s government for providing “unprecedented security funding,” and introducing legislation to proscribe the IRGC.
Burnham, for his part, has spoken out against antisemitism in the wake of violence attacks. Following the October 2025 Yom Kippur attack at the Heaton Park Congregation synagogue in Manchester, in which two people were killed, Burnham said in an official release, “Tonight, our first thoughts are with the families of those who have died, those injured and those traumatised by this – a horrific antisemitic attack on our Jewish friends and neighbours. We condemn it outright.”
He also wrote in a post on X on the same day, “Today we have witnessed a vile attack on our Jewish community on its holiest day. We condemn whoever is responsible and will do everything within our power to keep people safe.”
His positions on Israel and Gaza have also come under scrutiny. In a June 4 interview with The Guardian, Burnham did not invoke the term “genocide” in relation to the war in Gaza, but did say, “I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester.”
He added, “But I do have concerns about the disproportionate nature of what has happened in terms of the destruction, and there has to be a full process of investigation and accountability.”
Additionally, 10 days after the Oct. 7 attacks, Burnham called for a ceasefire in a joint statement with 10 Greater Manchester leaders. The statement read in part, “We condemn unreservedly the appalling terror attacks on innocent civilians in Israel by Hamas on 7th October.”
The statement also noted that Israel has the right to take “targeted action within international law” to defend itself and to rescue its hostages, but added, “We also have profound concerns about the loss of thousands of innocent lives in Gaza, the displacement of many more and widespread suffering through the ongoing blockade of essential goods and services.”
Referencing his expected leadership bid, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told the Jewish News on June 17 that Burnham had a few weeks earlier met with Jewish communal leaders in Greater Manchester.
When it comes to Israel, Nandy said Burnham “believes in justice, so he’s acutely aware of the need for a safe homeland for Jewish people, you know, and the particularly unique historical reasons why Israel came into existence.”
The post U.K. PM Starmer leaves behind mixed record on antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.

