Uncategorized
Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan
(JTA) — Israel’s 75th anniversary was supposed to be a blowout birthday party for its supporters, but that was before the country was convulsed by street protests over the right-wing government’s proposal to overhaul its judiciary. Critics call it an unprecedented threat to Israel’s democracy, and supporters of Israel found themselves conflicted. In synagogues across North America, rabbis found themselves giving “yes, but” sermons: Yes, Israel’s existence is a miracle, but its democracy is fragile and in danger.
One of those sermons was given a week ago Saturday by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, expressing his “dismay” over the government’s actions. Hirsch is the former head of ARZA, the Reform movement’s Zionist organization, and the founder of a new organization, Amplify Israel, meant to promote Zionism among Reform Jews. He is often quoted as an example of a mainstream non-Orthodox rabbi who not only criticizes anti-Zionism on the far left but who insists that his liberal colleagues are not doing enough to defend the Jewish state from its critics.
Many on the Jewish left, meanwhile, say Jewish establishment figures, even liberals like Hirsch, have been too reluctant to call out Israel on, for example, its treatment of the Palestinians — thereby enabling the country’s extremists.
In March, however, he warned that the “Israeli government is tearing Israeli society apart and bringing world Jewry along for the dangerous ride.” That is uncharacteristically strong language from a rabbi whose forthcoming book, “The Lilac Tree: A Rabbi’s Reflections on Love, Courage, and History,” includes a number of essays on the limits of criticizing Israel. When does such criticism give “comfort to left-wing hatred of Israel,” as he writes in his book, and when does failure to criticize Israel appear to condone extremism?
Although the book includes essays on God, Torah, history and antisemitism, in a recent interview we focused on the Israel-Diaspora divide, the role of Israel in the lives of Diaspora Jews and why the synagogue remains the “central Jewish institution.”
The interview was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You gave a sermon earlier this month about the 75th anniversary of Israel’s founding, which is usually a time of celebration in American synagogues, but you also said you were “dismayed” by the “political extremism” and “religious fundamentalism” of the current government. Was that difficult as a pulpit rabbi?
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: The approach is more difficult now with the election of the new government than it has been in all the years of the past. Because we can’t sanitize supremacism, elitism, extremism, fundamentalism, and we’re not going to. Israel is in what’s probably the most serious domestic crisis in the 75-year history of the state. And what happens in Israel affects American Jewry directly. It’s Israeli citizens who elect their representatives, but that’s not the end of the discussion neither for Israelis or for American Jews. At the insistence of both parties, both parties say the relationship is fundamental and critical and it not only entitles but requires Israelis and world Jews to be involved in each other’s affairs.
For American Jewry, in its relationship with Israel, our broadest objective is to sustain that relationship, deepen that relationship, and encourage people to be involved in the affairs in Israel and to go to Israel, spend time in Israel and so forth, and that’s a difficult thing to do and at the same time be critical.
American Jews have been demonstrating here in solidarity with the Israelis who have been protesting the recent judicial overhaul proposals in Israel. Is that a place for liberal American Jews to make their voices heard on what happens in Israel?
I would like to believe that if I were living in Israel, I would be at every single one of those demonstrations on Saturday night, but I don’t participate in demonstrations here because the context of our world and how we operate is different from in Israel when an Israeli citizen goes out and marches on Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv. It’s presumed that they’re Zionists and they’re speaking to their own government. I’m not critical of other people who reach a different perspective in the United States, but for me, our context is different. Even if we say the identical words in Tel Aviv or on West 68th Street, they’re perceived in a different way and they operate in a different context.
What then is the appropriate way for American Jews to express themselves if they are critical of an action by the Israeli government?
My strongest guidance is don’t disengage, don’t turn your back, double down, be more supportive of those who support your worldview and are fighting for it in Israel. Polls seem to suggest that the large majority of Israelis are opposed to these reforms being proposed. Double down on those who are supportive of our worldview.
You lament in your book that the connections to Israel are weakening among world Jewry, especially among Jewish liberals.
The liberal part of the Jewish world is where I am and where the people I serve are by and large, and where at least 80% of American Jewry resides. It’s a difficult process because we’re operating here in a context of weakening relationship: a rapidly increasing emphasis on universal values, what we sometimes call tikkun olam [social justice], and not as a reflection of Jewish particularism, but often at the expense of Jewish particularism.
There is a counter-argument, however, which you describe in your book: “some left-wing Jewish activists contend that alienation from Israel, especially among the younger generations, is a result of the failures of the American Jewish establishment” — that is, by not doing more to express their concerns about the dangers of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, for example, the establishment alienated young liberal Jews. You’re skeptical of that argument. Tell me why.
Fundamentally I believe that identification with Israel is a reflection of identity. If you have a strong Jewish identity, the tendency is to have a strong connection with the state of Israel and to believe that the Jewish state is an important component of your Jewish identity. I think that surveys bear that out. No doubt the Palestinian question will have an impact on the relationship between American Jews in Israel as long as it’s not resolved, it will be an outstanding irritant because it raises moral dilemmas that should disturb every thinking and caring Jew. And I’ve been active in trying to oppose ultra-Orthodox coercion in Israel. But fundamentally, while these certainly are components putting pressure on the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, in particular among the elites of the American Jewish leadership, for the majority of American Jews, the relationship with Israel is a reflection of their relationship with Judaism. And if that relationship is weak and weakening, as day follows night, the relationship with Israel will weaken as well.
But what about the criticism that has come from, let’s say, deep within the tent? I am thinking of the American rabbinical students who in 2021 issued a public letter accusing Israel of apartheid and calling on American Jewish communities to hold Israel accountable for the “violent suppression of human rights.” They were certainly engaged Jews, and they might say that they were warning the establishment about the kinds of right-wing tendencies in Israel that you and others in the establishment are criticizing now.
Almost every time I speak about Israel and those who are critical of Israel, I hold that the concept of criticism is central to Jewish tradition. Judaism unfolds through an ongoing process of disputation, disagreement, argumentation, and debate. I’m a pluralist, both politically as well as intellectually.
In response to your question, I would say two things. First of all, I distinguish between those who are Zionist, pro-Israel, active Jews with a strong Jewish identity who criticize this or that policy of the Israeli government, and between those who are anti-Zionists, because anti-Zionism asserts that the Jewish people has no right to a Jewish state, at least in that part of the world. And that inevitably leads to anti-Jewish feelings and very often to antisemitism.
When it came to the students, I didn’t respond at all because I was a student once too, and there are views that I hold today that I didn’t hold when I was a student. Their original article was published in the Forward, if I’m not mistaken, and it generated some debate in all the liberal seminaries. I didn’t respond at all until it became a huge, multi-thousand word piece in The New York Times. Once it left the internal Jewish scene, it seemed to me that I had an obligation to respond. Not that I believe that they’re anti-Zionist — I do not. I didn’t put them in the BDS camp [of those who support the boycott of Israel]. I just simply criticized them.
Hundreds of Jews protest the proposed Israeli court reform outside the Israeli consulate in New York City on Feb. 21, 2023. (Gili Getz)
You signed a letter with other rabbis noting that the students’ petition came during Israel’s war with Hamas that May, writing that “those who aspire to be future leaders of the Jewish people must possess and model empathy for their brothers and sisters in Israel, especially when they are attacked by a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State.”
My main point was that the essence of the Jewish condition is that all Jews feel responsible one for the another — Kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh. And that relationship starts with emotions. It starts with a feeling of belongingness to the Jewish people, and a feeling of concern for our people who are attacked in the Jewish state. My criticism was based, in the middle of a war, on expressing compassion, support for our people who are under indiscriminate and terrorist assault. I uphold that and even especially in retrospect two years later, why anyone would consider that to be offensive in any way is still beyond me.
You were executive director of ARZA, the Reform Zionist organization, and you write in your book that Israel “is the primary source of our people’s collective energy — the engine for the recreation and restoration of the national home and the national spirit of the Jewish people.” A number of your essays put Israel at the center of the present-day Jewish story. You are a rabbi in New York City. So what’s the role or function of the Diaspora?
Our existence in the Diaspora needs no justification. For practically all of the last 2,000 years, Jewish life has existed in the Diaspora. It’s only for the last 75 years and if you count the beginning of the Zionist movement, the last 125 years or so that Jews have begun en masse to live in the land of Israel. Much of the values of what we call now Judaism was developed in the Diaspora. Moreover, the American Jewish community is the strongest, most influential, most glorious of all the Jewish Diasporas in Jewish history.
And yet, the only place in the Jewish world where the Jewish community is growing is in Israel. More Jewish children now live in Israel than all the other places in the world combined. The central value that powers the sustainability, viability and continuity of the Jewish people is peoplehood. It’s not the values that have sustained the Jewish people in the Diaspora and over the last 2,000 years, which was Torah or God, what we would call religion. I’m a rabbi. I believe in the centrality of God, Torah and religion to sustain Jewish identity. But in the 21st century, Israel is the most eloquent concept of the value of Jewish peoplehood. And therefore, I do not believe that there is enough energy, enough power, enough sustainability in the classical concept of Judaism to sustain continuity in the Diaspora. The concept of Jewish peoplehood is the most powerful way that we can sustain Jewish continuity in the 21st century.
But doesn’t that negate the importance of American Jewry?
In my view, it augments the sustainability of American Jewry. If American Jews disengage from Israel, and from the concept of Jewish peoplehood, and also don’t consider religion to be at the center of their existence, then what’s left? Now there’s a lot of activity, for example, on tikkun olam, which is a part of Jewish tradition. But tikkun olam in Judaism always was a blend between Jewish particularism and universalism — concern for humanity at large but rooted in the concept of Jewish peoplehood. But very often now, tikkun olam in the Diaspora is practiced not as a part of the concept of Jewish particularism but, as I said before, at the expense of Jewish particularism. That will not be enough to sustain Jewish communities going into the 21st century.
I want to ask about the health of the American synagogue as an institution. Considering your concern about the waning centrality of Torah and God in people’s lives — especially among the non-Orthodox — do you feel optimistic about it as an institution? Does it have to change?
I’ve believed since the beginning of my career that there’s no substitute in the Diaspora for the synagogue as the central Jewish institution. We harm ourselves when we underemphasize the central role of the synagogue. Any issue that is being done by one of the hundreds of Jewish agencies that we’ve created rests on our ability as a community to produce Jews into the next generation. And what are those institutions that produce that are most responsible for the production of Jewish continuity? Synagogues, day schools and summer camps, and of the three synagogues are by far the most important for the following reasons: First, we’re the only institution that defines ourselves as and whose purpose is what we call cradle to grave. Second, for most American Jews, if they end up in any institution at all it will be a synagogue. Far fewer American Jews will receive a day school education and or go to Jewish summer camps. That should have ramifications across the board for American Jewish policy, including how we budget Jewish institutions. We should be focusing many, many more resources on these three institutions, and at the core of that is the institution of the synagogue.
—
The post Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Nominee for Wisconsin governor appeared with podcast host who defended ‘Camp Auschwitz’ t-shirt
Rep. Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin’s Republican nominee for governor, is facing heat for appearing on a podcast hosted by an online personality with a history of antisemitic remarks and jokes about Adolf Hitler.
“The Quartering” podcast host Jeremy Hambly has said Adolf Hitler had “actually done some good things,” joked with guests about the Holocaust by calling it the “Hall of Cost” and saying it cost “around 6 million bucks,” and defended a “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirt worn during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot as “dark humor.” In 2023, The Quartering was sponsored by Antelope Hill Publishing, a white nationalist publisher that marked Hitler’s birthday each year by offering discounts on books written by and about the Nazi leader.
Tiffany discussed his gubernatorial bid on a December episode of the podcast, as reported by the Milwaukee Courier — news that emerged after Tiffany had criticized a leading Democratic candidate for appearing with popular progressive streamer Hasan Piker, who has been embraced by Democratic Party candidates even as he has championed terrorist groups as righteous fighters against Israel — leading to accusations he trafficks in antisemitism. In a recent speech to college students, Piker blasted Democrats who “fund ICE” and “fund Israel.”
On the podcast, Tiffany, who is running unopposed on the Republican side to replace Gov. Tony Evers, a two-term Democrat who announced his retirement, also accepted Hambly’s offer to volunteer for his campaign.
In the interview with Tiffany, Hambly said he “will do everything” he can to elect the Republican as governor and offered to help the Tiffany campaign alongside Scott Presler, a prominent “Stop the Steal” activist who has been affiliated with the anti-Islamic group ACT for America.
“I can bring Scott Presler out. We can doorknock for you,” Hambly said. When Hambly asked how supporters could get involved, Tiffany directed listeners to his campaign website to sign up as volunteers.
The resurfaced interview comes as Tiffany has sought to make antisemitism an issue in the governor’s race by criticizing Democratic state Rep. Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist whose campaign has gained momentum in the competitive Aug. 11 Democratic primary, for appearing on a livestream hosted by Piker.
“Remember what [Hong] said the day after we had all these socialists win recent elections?” Tiffany said on The Jay Weber Show last week. “Wisconsin, you’re next.” He later warned that voters “need to wake up” before Hong, whom he said was “going to hang around with an antisemite,” is elected governor.
The Tiffany campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the candidate’s podcast appearance.
Hong defended her appearance on Piker’s show, saying, “Just because I am on a platform certainly does not mean that I endorse everything that has been said by either the hosts or other people who have gone on.”
Wisconsin Republicans have been accused by Democrats of trying to boost Hong in the primary because they believe she would be easier to beat than her rivals in the general election. Recent polls show Hong with a slight lead.
Emily Stuckey, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, told the Forward in a statement that “Tiffany is cozying up to antisemitic extremists who have praised Hitler and encouraging them to volunteer with his campaign — it’s clear he is far too extreme to represent Wisconsin.”
The post Nominee for Wisconsin governor appeared with podcast host who defended ‘Camp Auschwitz’ t-shirt appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump rejects Mamdani vow to arrest Netanyahu in NYC
(JTA) — Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he’s still thinking about whether he should arrest Benjamin Netanyahu the next time the Israeli prime minister is in New York City. Not gonna happen, President Donald Trump stepped in on Monday to say.
“Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump’s post came days after Mamdani said that he is in “active conversation” with the city’s Law Department about detaining a foreign leader like Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged actions related to Israel’s war with Hamas. Netanyahu often attends the United Nations General Assembly in Manhattan in September and is planning to do so this year.
“I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in The Hague,” Mamdani reiterated, in an interview with the New York Times, referring to the court’s seat in the Netherlands.
He also hedged on his earlier pledge, seeming ready to defer to the city’s lawyers. (The legal consensus has been that a warrant by a court not recognized by the United States is unenforceable. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he is seeking the dismantlement of the ICC.)
“I’ve also said that I will follow the laws that we have here in New York City because I believe that there is an importance in following the law as a leader who presides over our city,” Mamdani told the Times. The interviewer, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, prompted him to elaborate. “Meaning that whatever the law allows me to do in New York City, that’s what we will do, but we won’t be writing our own laws to that end,” Mamdani said.
Trump jumped to the defense of Netanyahu, who is up for reelection later this year.
Netanyahu, he said, is busy fighting the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that the “only ones that should be arrested are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!”
Trump’s comments come after months of speculation over how an attempted arrest of Netanyahu could pit New York City law enforcement against the United States. Mamdani told reporters after a private meeting with the president last year that the two men did not discuss his vow to arrest Netanyahu. Mamdani has said he would also push for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, were he to enter New York City.
Some Mamdani Democratic allies were also pouring cold water on the prospect of an arrest.
California Rep. Ro Khanna, who is often aligned with Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian politics, said on the Fox News Channel on Sunday that, in his view, Netanyahu “can come to the U.N. Assembly.”
“The ICC and ICJ have a legal process. That case will go forward,” Khanna said, adding that he’s focused on cutting military aid and stopping weapons sales to Israel. “But, you know, I’m not for creating a spectacle. The U.N. is a place that people can come to.”
Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Barack Obama, speculated that Mamdani’s plan could backfire, since an attempt to arrest Netanyahu would “give him a political boost at home” as Netanyahu fights for reelection. “That would be an own goal,” Shapiro wrote on X.
Republican New York City Council member Inna Vernikov, who is Jewish and has been a staunch Mamdani critic, wrote to Rubio requesting that the State Department issue Mamdani a “stern warning.” She also asked that the department issue an opinion on whether arresting Netanyahu would “violate U.S. law resulting in a prosecution and/or criminal action taken by the federal government against Mayor Mamdani.”
A New York City mayor has previously booted an international leader from a U.N.-related event. In 1995, Rudy Giuliani had Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, ejected from a U.N. concert at Lincoln Center, drawing criticism from then-President Bill Clinton’s administration.
Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote on Saturday that Netanyahu will be attending the U.N. General Assembly in September. “And if anyone should be arrested, it is @NYCMayor Zohran Mamdani,” he said.
The post Trump rejects Mamdani vow to arrest Netanyahu in NYC appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Where does Andy Burnham, the new British prime minister, stand on Israel and antisemitism?
(JTA) — Andy Burnham officially became Britain’s new Labour prime minister on Monday, replacing Keir Starmer who resigned following the party’s disastrous showing in local elections in May.
Starmer left behind a mixed record on antisemitism. He purged the party of its image as hostile to Jews under former party leader Jeremy Corbyn. But at the same time, attacks against Jews in Britain have risen in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack on Israel, and uncertainty is at a high.
Starmer’s successor has spent much of his political career over the past decade cultivating close ties with Britain’s Jewish community. As the former mayor of Greater Manchester, home to one of Europe’s largest Jewish populations, Burnham frequently spoke out against antisemitism, attended Holocaust commemorations and worked closely with Jewish communal organizations.
Yet in the lead-up to his installation as prime minister, Burnham also signaled a shift in Labour’s mainstream position on Israel and Gaza, including support for greater pressure on Israel.
Burnham’s comments about Labour’s leadership contest prompted a sharp rebuke from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, which expressed “significant concerns” over his framing of Gaza and Israel’s war with Hamas. The umbrella groups also said they welcomed his commitment to tackling antisemitism.
Here is a look at some of Burnham’s views on the subjects and how they might impact his party’s policies going forward.
Early support for Israel and a two-state solution
During Labour’s 2015 leadership contest, Burnham said at a Jewish community debate that his first foreign trip, should he win the Labour leadership, would be to Israel. He opposed a boycott of Israel, asking, “What message would it send?” while stating that he supported a negotiated two-state solution.
In a questionnaire sent to him that year by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, he also stated that he supported “two states living side by side in peace, and recognized by all of their neighbors.” However, he added that he supported “an end to occupation and illegal settlement building by the Israelis, and an end to the rocket and terror attacks by the terrorist group Hamas.”
He also made it clear at the time that he did not support West Bank settlements, telling the PSC, “Labour recognizes that the settlements and their continued expansion remain key obstacles to resolving the conflict, as [then party leader] Ed Miliband has said, they are both illegal and immoral.”
Labour’s antisemitism crisis
Burnham was vocal about tackling antisemitism when the Labour Party became embroiled in allegations of antisemitism under Corbyn’s leadership between 2015 and 2020,.
Corbyn had in 2012 mural defended a mural depicting hook-nosed Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of exploited workers. (He later said he regretted the defense.) He called representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends.”
Burnham told the Board of Deputies in 2019 that Labour had failed to deal with antisemitism complaints “firmly, quickly and decisively” and warned that the party had lost the confidence of many Jewish voters.
“It is inconceivable to me that a party which has prided itself on its record on racism could have become embroiled in an antisemitism crisis,” he said.
In 2020, the U.K.’s Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour had committed unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination related to antisemitism.
Oct. 7 and rising antisemitism
In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack, Burnham issued a statement with his deputy mayor saying, “We condemn without reservation the appalling attacks in Israel by Hamas. Nothing justifies the taking of innocent lives in such a barbaric and indiscriminate manner.”
He also stated that “Israel had a right to defend itself, and protect its citizens, in line with international law”
He told the Jewish community that he had spoken with Greater Manchester’s chief constable, who assured him there would be an increased police presence alongside Jewish community organizations. Burnham said local leaders were “determined that all our communities in Greater Manchester will be kept safe” and that “we will never tolerate any form of hatred on our streets.”
Manchester synagogue terror attack
Barely two years later on Yom Kippur 2025, Manchester became the target of a major terror attack, outside Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation. Two people were killed amid a police response.
“Manchester stands together and we will not allow division in our communities,” Burnham said, visiting the synagogue soon after what he described as an attack on the entire city.
Golders Green ambulance attack
Burnham spoke out in April when four Hatzola volunteer ambulances were set ablaze in London’s heavily Orthodox Golders Green neighborhood. “This is another terrible incident that will concern Jewish communities in London and in Greater Manchester who have faced appalling antisemitic attacks in recent months,” he said.
Recent comments on Gaza
Burnham has been critical of Israel’s military campaign in the aftermath of Oct. 7. He doubled down in a leadership campaign video released last week and took his own party to task.
He condemned Hamas and once again rejected antisemitism, but he argued Britain should “do more to put pressure on the Israeli government,” including considering further restrictions on arms exports and action against illegal West Bank settlements.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right, and I am sorry about that,” he said. The party was “too slow to call for a ceasefire.”
He called images from Gaza “a scar on our collective conscience.”
His comments reflect a parliamentary push across the board that Britain should do more to take action against Israel, including supporting a ban on all Israeli goods coming from the West Bank — something that Ireland and other European countries have been pushing for.
In his video, Burnham stopped short of describing Israel’s actions as genocide, saying that such a determination should be made by international courts.
Jewish communal reaction
The video drew a swift response from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council. Burnham had seen “first hand the links between hatred of Israel, antisemitic extremism and deadly violence against British Jews,” the groups said.
They urged Burnham and other political leaders to “show the utmost care in their rhetoric” at a time when antisemitism in Britain had become “more normalized, more extreme and more violent.”
British Jews will watch closely how Burnham balances his longstanding engagement with the Jewish community and his increasingly critical stance toward the Israeli government.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Chief Executive Gideon Falter read aloud an open letter to Burnham on Monday calling on him to take a stand against the rise in antisemitism in the country. “Your legacy will not be remembered solely in terms of tax rates and hospital waiting times,” Falter said. “It will be whether Jews were murdered or thrived in Andy Burnham’s Britain.”
Board of Deputies President Phil Rosenberg congratulated Burnham on X, and welcomed the new prime minister’s “early commitment to tackling antisemitism,” and that the Board “will work with his administration towards the U.K. playing its strongest role in global peace and security.”
Ephraim Mirvis, the country’s chief rabbi, posted a photo on X of himself and Burnham and offered a blessing. “He assumes the immense responsibility of leadership at a time of great challenge, both at home and abroad,” Mirvis said. “May he be blessed with the wisdom, strength and good judgment to keep our country safe and may his service bring prosperity and harmony for all.”
The post Where does Andy Burnham, the new British prime minister, stand on Israel and antisemitism? appeared first on The Forward.
