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
In Israel’s mixed cities, the future of coexistence is already being tested
Human ingenuity has equipped us with technology to connect individuals in a way once unimaginable. But, in the past two decades, we have used that power to find ever more things that we hate about each other.
Since modern society has become remarkably proficient at manufacturing polarization, we need to learn from places where people already live alongside those they have been taught to regard as fundamentally different. Not because those places have solved the problem, but because they have no choice but to confront it.
Israel’s so-called mixed cities are among those places.
In Split: Life in the Israeli Mixed Cities, filmmakers Shady Srour and Dina Zvi Riklis examine the fragile arrangements through which Jewish and Arab Israelis inhabit the same urban spaces. The documentary focuses on five cities — Acre (Akko), Ramla, Haifa, Lod (Lydda) and Jaffa — that are defined as “mixed” by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics because “a significant majority of Jewish residents lives alongside a significant minority of Arab residents.” Each of these cities, though, has a distinct history, demographics and political reality which resists the reassuring simplicity of the official designation.
Mixed implies that ingredients combine to produce something new. These cities are, however, more accurately described as shared, contested or, as the film’s title suggests, “split.” (The full title is in Arabic and Hebrew — Fasl Mukhtalat: Chatzuyot.) Their residents live along the same streets but do not necessarily inhabit the same understanding of what those streets mean. According to Adam Raz, one of many experts and residents interviewed in the film, families living a mere 100 meters apart often have an entirely different worldview because they consume completely opposing narratives — with a Jewish home watching Israel’s Channel 12 while an Arab neighbor watches Qatar’s Al Jazeera.
Artistic collaborators, Samira Saraya and Neta Weiner make music together in Jaffa to try to bridge the gap. Saraya sings a fragment of Hayim Nahman Bialik poem “To the Bird” about the beauty of Israel while on a car trip with Weiner. It lands poignantly and defamiliarized, given her Arab identity. She says “the word ‘mixed’ is taking two things and putting them together, but ‘blended’ means people live together and speak the language of both groups.” She describes Jaffa as “truly a mixed city.”
“It’s the only place,” she says, “where I can breathe and just be.”
In a country whose population is roughly four-fifths Jewish and one-fifth Arab, the question of how these communities live together is not incidental to Israeli democracy; it is fundamental to its survival. Srour and Riklis ask experts, including politicians, professors and theater directors, about the history of the conflict and the challenges facing the cities. Mostly they cut between historical footage of events and interviews they have shot with Arab and Jewish experts as well as locals of all genders and ages on their streets and homes. This constant weave of testimony across lived, cultural and political experience leads to a rich density of overlapping concern and anxieties, though it does mean that the cities blur into each other.
One interview takes place in a Ramla kitchen where Jalal Habit discusses the situation and his life with energy and passion all while sporting an “Ich bin hummussexuelle” t-shirt and preparing the food for his restaurant. He seems angry at the Jews, but in a chef’s businesslike way. He recounts how he was complaining to his friend that the Jews have taken everything from the Arabs, land, hummus, falafel, and how his friend demurred, no they haven’t taken anything, they are “building everything for us and soon they’ll leave and they’ll leave everything to us.”
The Hebrew word du-kiyum, coexistence, is invoked throughout the film. Beyond the Kulna Yachad school in Jaffa where children learn together, however, it mostly describes a hope or a transient memory rather than a concrete way of being. What makes Split compelling is its attention also to the conversations that coexistence often requires people not to have. Jewish and Arab neighbors may work together, maintain friendships and cooperate on municipal initiatives. They can agree about schools, garbage collection, traffic and the everyday business of keeping a city functioning. Yet the larger questions — of history, dispossession, national belonging and competing loyalties — remain unspoken. Split gives those questions a tentative voice.
The alternative to such imperfect arrangements has sometimes been catastrophic. Split does not draw the comparison, but when British India was partitioned in 1947, over 15 million people were displaced, and massacres killed hundreds of thousands. Neither in India nor the Middle East did partition eliminate competing identities. It converted them into borders, refugees and inherited grievances. Despite accepting the partition plan and taking billions of dollars in aid from America and the West, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has lurched from military coup to corrupt civilian governance without ever safeguarding the rights of women, LGBTQ individuals, or religious minorities.
The relative economic success, and demographic tolerance of Israel’s mixed cities has led to their own challenges. They contain communities with their own histories of war, displacement, and social transformation, particularly from the aftermath of World War II. The filmmakers catch a Jewish resident of Acre as she’s inspecting an abandoned bomb shelter. In a perfect distillation of traumatized Israeli Jewish identity she explains how she sees herself descended from the Shoah and from Ottoman Jews:
My personal story contains the story of my grandmother from Germany and that of my grandfather from the Jewish Quarter in ’48 and it’s a story that passes down, and it’s in my DNA. The experience of the surviving Jew, it’s an existential experience of a people and the desire to annihilate us. And we’re facing it again all over the world.
Meanwhile, different Arab families explain in affecting terms how their families were dispossessed by the State of Israel during the Nakba, from Haifa which became a battlefield, from Acre, and from Jaffa. Ghassan Mounir from Lod gives an extended account of the ongoing challenges placed in his way by the Jewish state: from the attacks on his family in 1948, to the refusal to give him the same building rights as the army veterans and Haredim who surround him. This is the historical context of a state that was nominally set up establishing rights “without distinction of religion or race” and “without domination or subjugation”
We have been in Lod since the 12th century. I grew up on this street, this is my home. [In 1948] the Jews … gathered [the whole village] in the square of the church and the mosque and expelled them to Abdullah. That march — thousands, thousands of people [were forced to make it] in the middle of July while fasting for Ramadan. They walked to Ramallah, some survived and some died.
Nothing of the present situation can be understood without those histories, however differently their residents describe them.
Edited down from a three-episode docuseries that premiered in Haifa, to a 90-minute documentary, Split is unhurried but urgent. It traces family histories as exemplars of different communities’ experiences and also the history of eruptions of urban violence throughout the history of the state. It calmly shows what it’s like to be in a minority where the majority is blasé about its ignorance of your culture.
At times, the movie veers close to despair — the heartfelt testimony of Ilham and Omar Siksik in Jaffa leaves it teetering on the edge. But their hope along with the testimony of Danny Rabinowitz (a Jewish anthropologist) and Mustafa Abbasi (an Arab-Israeli historian of Palestine) holds out the possibility that somehow rival national narratives might coexist in the same physical space. Rabinowitz says he still longs for hope, but without knowing exactly where to look for it. He is waiting for “leaders of vision and courage” from both sides. In the words of Abbasi:
There are those on both sides who believe that there is no shared future. I tell them, the future belongs to coexistence, and there is no solution other than mutual understanding.
When Hanna Safran and Nabila Espanioly — two veterans of the feminist struggle, one Jewish, one Arab — argue about political agency, Espanioly points out how obvious it is in the feminist context that freedom to be yourself is a sine qua non of being free politically. It’s a clear point and one given further depth and richness later by the testimony of Ayat Abu Shamis who is a mother, a resident of Jaffa, and an Arab who writes poetry in Hebrew. She reads her poem in Hebrew about coexistence as part of her interview.
Watching Split and some of the ways Arab-Israelis were treated — specifically how former soccer commentator and MK Zuheir Bahloul talked of his constituents’ rights — reminded me of Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre’s famous statement of emancipatory racism. The identity prescribed by the State of Israel for Arab-Israelis carries a philosophical contradiction as old as modern Jewish citizenship. In December 1789, during the French Revolution, Clermont-Tonnerre articulated the bargain at the heart of Jewish emancipation: Jews should receive full rights as individuals but no separate political rights as a nation. The promise was equality. The price was the surrender of collective difference in the public sphere.
Israel reverses that historical equation in fascinating and uncomfortable ways. It was established to make Jewish collective identity politically sovereign. Yet within that Jewish state live Arab citizens who — until the passage of the 2018 Israeli Nation-State Law downgraded Arab identity in Israel from “equal” to “special” — had full rights as individuals, but whose own collective identity, history and national aspirations were, by and large, proscribed. The challenge is not merely to grant equal rights to individuals, essential though that is. It is to imagine a democracy capable of accommodating communities whose understandings of the state itself may be irreconcilable with each other.
In last month’s elections, Arab representation in the Knesset reached a record high, approximately one-sixth of its membership. Finally, Arab MKs are at a level approaching the proportion of Arab citizens in the electorate. That political presence matters. But parliamentary representation cannot by itself resolve the contradictions visible on a street in Lod or Jaffa. The novelist Amos Oz famously described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not as a struggle between good and evil but as a tragedy of “right against right.” In that formulation he recognized that competing claims can possess equal moral force, even when they cannot both be satisfied completely.
Split brings that abstract proposition down to the municipal level, where coexistence is less a philosophical ideal than a daily negotiation. The film’s deeper question is not whether Jews and Arabs can learn to like one another. Some already do. Nor is it whether they can avoid discussing everything that divides them. Evidently, they sometimes must. It is whether a shared civic life can eventually become robust enough to accommodate the disagreements it currently suppresses.
The chef Habit is given the last word: “But I don’t want the Jews to leave. If the Jews leave, it won’t be the same place. Jews and Arabs have to live together, they can live together. If I weren’t optimistic, I would’ve stayed in Ramla.”
As the world perfects the technology and politics of polarization, Israel’s mixed cities offer neither an easy inspiration nor a comforting warning but something more useful: evidence that people can remain profoundly divided while still sharing responsibility for the places they call home. The future depends on learning how to live with our differences — especially when the people across the street have every intention of staying.
“Split: Life in the Israeli Mixed Cities” has its U.S. premiere as part of the Other Israel: New Perspectives Film Festival. It will show on Mon, Nov. 9 at 7:30 PM at the Marlene Meyerson JCC Manhattan and again on Wed, Nov 11, 7:30 PM at the Brooklyn Heights Synagogue.
The post In Israel’s mixed cities, the future of coexistence is already being tested appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A staunch supporter of Israel, Hakeem Jeffries would lead a Democratic majority pushing for change in U.S. policy
(JTA) — When the next Congress convenes in January with a Democratic majority, it will likely be Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the pro-Israel Democrat from Brooklyn, who leads the House of Representatives.
As House Speaker, Jeffries would play a key role in setting the House’s legislative agenda at a time when many Democrats have taken more critical stances on Israel and AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group. Jeffries himself has asserted that a “change in direction is needed” for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
His support for Israel and ties to AIPAC have angered a number of progressives who want to see party leadership apply greater pressure on the Israeli government. Advocates have blasted Jeffries for opposing an amendment to end U.S. military assistance to Israel and pressured him to reject AIPAC’s support and criticize its election spending.
Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of the progressive group New Jewish Narrative, told JTA that Jeffries will have to navigate leading a caucus that includes “a much larger group of members who really care about this and feel like they need to deliver for their voters” on broader Israeli-Palestinian foreign policy.
Susskind pointed to the Stop the Settlements Act introduced by Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro as an example of where Jeffries will face more pressure than in past years to bring bills on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to a floor vote.
“He’s not the far left, he’s not rolling out a DSA agenda,” Susskind said. “But I think it is going to be a different agenda — not only than, of course, what we’ve seen from Republican Congress, but even than we’ve seen from past Democratic Congresses.”
But Jeffries, who would be the first Black House speaker in U.S. history, has retained AIPAC’s support and voted against an immediate cutoff of military aid to Israel. He has fostered close ties with a number of Jewish organizations and leaders.
The Jewish Community Council of Greater Coney Island’s executive director praised Jeffries’ role in securing $1 million for the organization in 2024. Jeffries also secured $850,000 for the Brighton Beach-based Shorefront Jewish Community Council.
Mark Treyger, CEO of New York’s Jewish Community Relations Council, called Jeffries a “dear friend” in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “This is an individual who, in my opinion, has been an unwavering ally to the Jewish community from his first day in Congress when I got to know him as a City Council member,” Treyger said.
Rabbi David Niederman, president of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, told Williamsburg 365 that his relationship with Jeffries “spans more than two decades, and throughout his rise to national leadership, he has remained firmly connected to his roots, his district, and the communities he serves.”
Jeffries grew up in Crown Heights, a Brooklyn neighborhood known for the close proximity of Black and Orthodox Jewish residents. Motivated in part by the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King, he decided to attend law school to fight for “liberty and justice for all, in the purest possible way.” He served three terms in the New York State Assembly representing Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights and parts of Crown Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant.
When Jeffries ran for Congress in 2012, he courted Jewish voters and drew endorsements from a number of Jewish leaders — including Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is retiring at the end of his term next month, and ex-Mayor Ed Koch. At the time, those leaders expressed concerns about his opponent Charles Barron, who in 2009 compared conditions in Gaza to Nazi death camps. The following year, Barron called Israel’s government “the biggest terrorist in the world.” Nadler specifically referred to Barron’s Nazi comparison in his endorsement of Jeffries.
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, now the party’s leader in the Senate, lauded Jeffries as a “true blue friend of Israel” in his 2012 endorsement. Koch, meanwhile, taped an ad for Jeffries that played on post-Shabbos Jewish radio, the New York Observer reported at the time.
“Jeffries is great on the issues: job creation, affordable housing, protection of Social Security, Medicare, and education,” Koch said in the ad. “Oh, did I mention Israel? He’s a fierce defender of Israel.”
Jeffries arrived in Congress at an uneasy time for Jews in New York City. In 2013, teens were targeting Orthodox Jews with “knockouts,” an effort to knock victims unconscious with a single blow. As a freshman representative, Jeffries joined a group of Black and Jewish leaders in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights to denounce the “game.”
The following year, Jeffries condemned the stabbing of a Chabad-Lubavitch man at the Hasidic movement’s Crown Heights headquarters, and urged people to “stand with” the Jewish community, which he called “an important part of the fabric of Crown Heights, where I grew up.”
Jeffries’ support for Israel has included a total of eight visits to the country, including at least once as an Assembly member with the JCRC, and six congressional delegations led by a nonprofit affiliate of AIPAC, the most recent of which took place in August 2023.
During the 2014 Gaza war, Jeffries spoke at a rally in support of Israel outside the United Nations, declaring, “Israel today, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever!”
About five weeks after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack, he did not mention a ceasefire but called for “a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people” at the pro-Israel rally held at the National Mall in Washington. On numerous occasions, he has affectionately called Jerusalem “the sixth borough” of New York City.
Progressives have taken issue with Jeffries’ pro-Israel stance over the years and with his endorsement from AIPAC, which got him the nickname “AIPAC Shakur” from radio host Charlamagne tha God.
Multiple pro-Palestinian protests have been held outside Jeffries’ offices, including one NYC-DSA demonstration in November 2023 in which protesters demanded that he “stop supporting genocide.”
Some of the democratic socialist candidates who will enter Congress in January indicated that they would need Jeffries to back certain policies — including pushing the Block the Bombs Act — to secure their support in the election for House Speaker. But those politicians’ leverage diminished after Democrats secured a large House majority last week, giving Jeffries room to lose some votes from DSA and DSA-aligned members and still secure the majority of votes cast for named candidates to become Speaker.
Still, Jeffries is facing pressure from the left on issues including Israel, as well as what critics perceive as insufficient resistance to the Trump administration. Some House Democrats have been “inundated” with calls from constituents urging them not to elect Jeffries, Axios reported, while a petition calling for a different Speaker — which was shared by actor Mark Ruffalo, who has been a vocal advocate for Palestinians — has garnered more than 1 million signatures.
California Rep. Ro Khanna said last week that he would press Jeffries to commit to holding votes on eliminating military aid to Israel, defunding the Iran war and advancing Medicare for All. (Jeffries told CNN on Wednesday that Democrats will seek to end the Iran war as part of a sweeping affordability agenda.)
Treyger said he is confident that Jeffries, who voted against the Massie amendment to cut military aid to Israel this summer, will not waver.
“The person that I know is never a person that bends to pressure,” Treyger said. He pointed out that Jeffries’ vote came less than a month after left-wing supporters chanted “You’re next!” when Jeffries’ face appeared on screens at Rep.-elect Claire Valdez’s victory party.
In September 2025, J Street, the liberal Middle East advocacy group, endorsed Jeffries, just two years after the group’s president Jeremy Ben-Ami challenged Jeffries over the congressman’s comments that U.S. military aid should “remain ironclad” and not be conditioned over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s radical judicial reform efforts.
“Our concern is that U.S. tax dollars shouldn’t be funding material and arms that facilitate the deepening of occupation and the permanent demise of a possible Palestinian state. That’s not in anyone’s security interest,” Ben-Ami said at the time.
Now, Jeffries is one of a dwindling group of Congress members supported by both AIPAC and J Street, two groups that went head-to-head in a number of races this year and have conflicting visions for military assistance and the U.S.-Israel relationship. He is also backed by Democratic Majority for Israel, whose CEO Brian Romick called Jeffries “a gifted consensus builder and a steadfast champion of the U.S.–Israel relationship” in an email to JTA.
In a statement to JTA on Thursday, Ben-Ami said that Jeffries “has been clear that, for the good of both Israelis and Palestinians, it is time for U.S. policy toward the Middle East to change.”
“We look forward to working with him to make that change a reality, including by passing the West Bank Violence Prevention Act, ending Trump’s war of choice with Iran, and ending unconditional military aid to Israel to ensure it is consistent with American laws and values,” Ben-Ami said.
Though Jeffries voted against the Massie amendment, he said that he would not be telling his colleagues how to vote, and wrote in a letter that “there are good faith reasons that will result in Members voting in a variety of different ways with respect to the amendment.” His letter also suggested that a new security arrangement after the current Memorandum of Understanding expires in 2028 could end direct military subsidies. Trump last week said he would wind down defense assistance to Israel, and Netanyahu has indicated he is on board with transitioning to a relationship where the two countries’ militaries remain closely aligned, but in which Israel does not depend on U.S. money.
When reached for comment, AIPAC pointed to its statement on X congratulating both Jeffries and Schumer “on the resounding victories for their caucuses.” It did not respond to a question about his support from J Street or view on military aid.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post A staunch supporter of Israel, Hakeem Jeffries would lead a Democratic majority pushing for change in U.S. policy appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Illinois voters pass proposals objecting to state anti-BDS law
(JTA) — Voters in eight municipalities in Illinois approved ballot measures last week registering formal objections to the state’s law barring state pension investments in companies that boycott Israel.
The ballot measures will have no effect on state policy. But pro-Palestinian groups are celebrating the wins as demonstrations of shifting public opinion against the law, first signed in 2015 to oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.
The village of Oak Park and the townships of Champaign, Cunningham, DuPage, Kickapoo, Medina, Normal and Peoria all approved similarly worded ballot measures that urge the state to repeal its anti-BDS law or support specific state legislation that would do so. According to unofficial tallies, 65% of voters in Oak Park, a Chicago suburb whose local Jewish population mounted a sustained objection to the referendum, approved the measure there.
Jewish groups including the Jewish United Fund, Chicago’s federation arm, had campaigned against the ballot measure. The Illinois law, championed by JUF when it was first passed, was the first of what has become dozens of state anti-BDS laws in the country. First Amendment groups have challenged the laws.
“We would have much preferred a victory,” Dan Goldwin, chief public affairs officer for JUF, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Monday. Yet Goldwin pointed out that Oak Park voters had approved the measure by smaller margins than their votes for top Democratic candidates including Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and former presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
“Once people began to be exposed to the meaning of what the referendum was about, they moved against it. We just didn’t have enough time,” he said.
Some members of the Oak Park opposition had engaged in a drawn-out fight over the eligibility of the signatures the ballot measure activists had gathered. That time, Goldwin theorized, “was probably time better spent convincing people to vote against it.”
Separately, voters in Bloomington Township approved a measure stating that the federal government should “ban the transfer of weapons to any country that is a dictatorship, apartheid state or major violator of human rights.” The ballot language did not mention Israel, but pro-Palestinian activists have long maintained that Israel commits apartheid and that the U.S. should halt weapons sales to the country.
Local Jewish figures have said the campaign troubled them.
“It felt like it was a local chapter of a global movement to destroy the world’s only Jewish state, and I felt it personally and acutely,” Rabbi Adir Glick of Conservative Temple Har Zion in River Forest, which borders Oak Park, told the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest about the campaign. “I know people who lost friendships in the last few months, and difficult moments with neighbors and colleagues, but it also galvanized our Jewish community.”
Goldwin said the measures’ passage wouldn’t change JUF’s own strategy opposing the repeal of the anti-BDS law at the state level. He noted that ballot measure activists, with the exception of Oak Park, largely didn’t target municipalities with large Jewish communities. In his view, those seeking the repeal of the law “are still a significant minority.”
The BDS movement had a more significant policy victory on election night with the passage of a binding ballot referendum in Providence, Rhode Island, to divest that city from “foreign countries conducting ethnic cleansing, apartheid, illegal military occupation, or genocide.” Proponents and opponents of the measure alike have said they believe the language and parameters of the question will include Israel.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Illinois voters pass proposals objecting to state anti-BDS law appeared first on The Forward.
