Antisemitism

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      New York governor considers face-mask ban on subway to deter crime

      by

      New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, is considering reimposing a ban on face masks in the Big Apple’s transit system over allegations that masked protesters are taking advantage of identity-concealing face wear to stage antisemitic attacks.The governor has not spelled out details of the policy or people who may be exempted. But she has said that she is motivated to act by “a group donning masks that took over a subway car, scaring riders and chanting things about [Nazi dictator Adolf] Hitler and wiping out Jews”.Hochul may have been referring to a recent episode involving a pro-Palestinian rally in which a man led a small group on a New York City subway car in chanting: “Raise your hands if you’re a Zionist – this is your chance to get out.”Another man is reported to have shouted allusions to the Holocaust, saying: “I wish Hitler was still here. He would’ve wiped all you out.”However, neither men was reported to have been masked.“We will not tolerate individuals using masks to evade responsibility for criminal or threatening behavior,” Hochul said on Thursday, adding that “on a subway, people should not be able to hide behind a mask to commit crimes”.The potential move comes close to four years after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic during which New Yorkers initially struggled to obtain enough masks to slow the spread of the virus. Masks then became a defining feature of the era, but recommendations to wear them have been dropped as protective vaccines have become available and the rate of spread has slowed.New York has historically had a push-and-pull relationship with face coverings dating to 1845, when they were banned in response to attacks by tenant farmers on landlords. That ban was repealed in 2020 in response to Covid, and masks became mandatory for two years until September 2022.Hochul, who last week put on hold a plan to charge drivers for entering lower Manhattan over concerns it could interfere with the city’s ongoing economic recovery, said the mask issue was “complex”.“We’re just listening to people and addressing their needs and taking them very seriously,” she added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPro-Palestinian demonstrators have said that wearing masks is necessary because of police surveillance and threats by some employers in the finance industry that participating in demonstrations could render protesters unemployable.On this issue, Hochul appears to have the backing of the New York City mayor, Eric Adams. He told the political talk-radio show Cats & Cosby this week that “people have hid under the guise of wearing a mask for Covid to commit criminal acts and vile acts. Now is the time to go back to the way it was pre-Covid, where you should not be able to wear a mask at protests and our subway systems and other places.”Adams went on to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. “Those civil rights leaders did not hide their faces,” Adams said. “They stood up. In contrast to that, the [Ku Klux] Klan hid their faces. Cowards hide their faces when they want to do something disgraceful.”The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Washington is pushing policies to combat antisemitism. Critics say they could violate free speech

      by

      Against the backdrop of demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza on college campuses, the White House and Congress have announced a string of policies and commitments aimed at addressing what Joe Biden warned was a “ferocious surge of antisemitism” in the United States.Antisemitism was on the rise in the US before Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, killing roughly 1,200 people and taking another 250 hostage. But the ensuing war has exacerbated the problem, with the law enforcement officials recording a spike in threats against Jewish Americans.Several of the proposals coming out of Washington DC have converged around college campuses, where hundreds of students have been arrested as part of pro-Palestinian demonstrations against Israel’s ongoing offensive in Gaza, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and caused catastrophic levels of hunger.Many Jewish students have said that rhetoric common to the protests – for example, their denunciations of Zionism and calls for a Palestinian uprising – too often veers into antisemitism and poses a threat to their safety. A number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers, as well as the president, have echoed their fears, condemning documented instances of antisemitism on campus.But critics say some of the actions and polices under consideration threaten free speech and are part of a broader effort to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.“The view that these encampments, these student protests, are per se antisemitic, which I think some people have, is leading to very aggressive repression,” said Genevieve Lakier, a professor of law at the University of Chicago law school and an expert in the first amendment. “I also think it is incorrect, particularly when the student movement is being populated and led in many ways by Jewish students.”​The wave of student activism​ against the war in Gaza has renewed a charged debate over what constitutes antisemitism.Many supporters of Israel say the situation on college campuses validates the view, articulated in 2022 by the Anti-Defamation League’s chief executive, Jonathan Greenblatt, that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. But the Jewish and non-Jewish students involved with campus protests say their critiques of Israel, and its rightwing government’s prosecution of the war, are legitimate political speech that should not be conflated with antisemitism.In remarks at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony at the Capitol last week, Biden vowed to leverage the full force of the US government to fight hate and bigotry against Jews and outlined specific policy steps his administration was taking to confront antisemitic discrimination in schools and universities.The debate is also playing out on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is considering a bill that would codify into federal law a definition of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization based in Stockholm.The IHRA defines antisemitism as “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. But it also includes several modern examples of antisemitism that alarm free speech advocates, among them “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”, claiming Israel’s existence is a “racist endeavor” and “applying double standards” to Israel that are not expected of other countries.Supporters say the bill, known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act, is critical.“We really believe it’s the single most important thing that Congress could do right now to help bring under control the rampant antisemitism we’ve seen on campus,” said Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, which is lobbying in support of the legislation.But opponents are urging the Senate to block the bill, recently approved by the House in a resounding 320-91 vote,“In a democratic society, we’re allowed to engage in political advocacy and political protests that criticize any government in the world,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire). “Taking some ideas off the table for one country is classic viewpoint discrimination that the courts just won’t tolerate.”Fire has opposed iterations of this bill since it was introduced in 2016, citing concerns that the definition is “vague, overbroad, and includes criticism of Israeli government policy”.If enacted, the Department of Education would be required to use the definition when conducting federal investigations into alleged incidents of discrimination against Jewish students. Colleges or universities found to have violated the law could be stripped of federal funding.Fingerhut said free speech concerns were a “red herring”, arguing that the legislation was designed to give the Department of Education and academic institutions a “clear” standard for punishing acts of antisemitism.But the bill has drawn condemnation from pro-Palestinian advocacy groups who view it as an attempt to quash their ascendent movement.The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) condemned the legislation as a “one-sided, and dishonest proposal about campus antisemitism that ignore[s] anti-Palestinian racism and conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism”.Since the Israel-Hamas conflict began seven months ago, the law enforcement officials have also warned of a rise in threats against Muslim and Arab Americans, and advocates are monitoring an uptick in Islamophobia on college campuses.One of the effort’s most notable opponents is a lawyer and scholar who authored the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. Kenneth Stern, who is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate and is Jewish, has said the definition was created with the purpose of collecting better data on antisemitism across borders, not to be turned into a campus hate-speech code.“In my experience, people who care about campus antisemitism, and want to do something about it, sometimes advocate things that feel good … but actually do great harm,” he testified in 2017 against a previous iteration of the bill.That version stalled, but two years later, proponents won a significant victory when Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order instructing federal agencies to use the IHRA definition when investigating civil rights complaints.In recent months, alarm over rising antisemitism – which Jewish groups say is not unique to college campuses – appears to have broadened support for the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Still, the vote split House Democrats, including some Jewish members of the caucus, who disagreed over whether it was the right legislative fix.The representative Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat who sponsored the House bill, said it was a necessary response to the “tidal wave” of antisemitism, while Maryland representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat and constitutional scholar, voted for the bill but called it “essentially symbolic”.“At this moment of anguish and confusion over the dangerous surge of antisemitism, authoritarianism and racism all over the country and the world, it seems unlikely that this meaningless ‘gotcha’ legislation can help much – but neither can it hurt much,” Raskin said.But the representative Jerry Nadler of New York, who describes himself as “an observant Jew, a proud Zionist, a strong supporter of Israel”, voted against the bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Nadler explained that he supported the sentiment behind the bill, but feared the it could “sweep in perfectly valid criticism of the state of Israel that, alone, does not necessarily constitute unlawful harassment or antisemitism”.“I want my Jewish community to feel safe on campus, but I do not need it shielded from controversial views simply because those views are unpopular,” he wrote.The legislation has also drawn opposition from some conservatives over concerns that it could be used to persecute Christians who express the belief that Jews killed Jesus, an assertion widely regarded as antisemitic that historians and Christian leaders, including Pope Benedict, have rejected.Civil liberties advocates are also raising concerns about an anti-terrorism bill approved overwhelmingly by the House last month in the wake of Iran’s unprecedented missile assault on Israel. Proponents say the measure is a necessary guardrail to prevent US-based organizations from providing financial support to Israel’s enemies. But critics have called it an “Orwellian bill aimed at silencing nonprofits that support Palestinian human rights”.Last week, Biden announced a series of actions that build on what the White House has called “the most comprehensive and ambitious US government effort to counter antisemitism in American history”.It included new guidance by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, sent to every school and college, that outlines examples of antisemitic discrimination and other forms of hate that could lead to a federal civil rights investigation. Since the 7 October attack, the Department of Education has launched more than 100 investigations into colleges and public school districts over allegations of “discrimination involving shared ancestry”, which include incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia.The initiative also includes additional steps the Department of Homeland Security would take to help campuses improve safety.Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, House Republicans have vowed to use their majority to intensify scrutiny of antisemitism on college campuses, part of their election-year strategy to use the unrest as a political cudgel against Biden and the Democrats, who are deeply divided over the Israel-Gaza war.Wielding their oversight powers, several House Republican chairs have announced plans to investigate universities where pro-Palestinian student protests have flourished. On Wednesday, a House subcommittee held a hearing, titled Antisemitism on College Campuses, in which Jewish college students testified that their university administrations had failed to stop antisemitic threats and harassment. And during a congressional panel last week, Republicans challenged the leaders of some of the nation’s largest public school systems to do more to counter antisemitism in their schools.It follows a tense hearing on antisemitism with administration officials from some of the nation’s most prestigious universities that precipitated the resignations of the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania. A congressional appearance last month by Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, escalated the antiwar protests at her school that then spread to campuses across the country.“There are a lot of shades of McCarthyism as the House keeps calling people in to shame and name them, to spread moral panic,” said Lakier of the University of Chicago law school.Facing enormous pressure from Congress and the Department of Education, as well as from students, faculty, donors and alumni, universities and colleges, Lakier argued, are collectively showing less tolerance for the pro-Palestinian student protests than they did for Vietnam war-era campus activism.On dozens of university campuses, state and local police officers, sometimes in riot gear, have dispersed pro-Palestinian protesters, often at the request of university officials. As many as 2,400 people have been arrested during pro-Palestinian campus protests in recent weeks, while many students have been suspended or expelled.“From a first amendment perspective, one hopes you learn from the past,” Lakier said, “but to be repeating it is distressing.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Are US campus protests antisemitic? Jewish students weigh in | Panel

      by

      Theo Goldstine: ‘I didn’t join the protests because of slogans’I was in California for Passover when the encampment first came up. I was excited because I want to see an end to what Human Rights Watch calls a system of apartheid, which refers to the fact that there are over 65 laws discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel, roads in the West Bank are segregated, Israelis have civil law while Palestinians have military law, water allotment is unequal and so much more.I was hopeful because we urgently need a ceasefire, an end to crimes against humanity such as mass starvation in Gaza and to bring the hostages home. I assumed I would hear chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Even though I prefer a confederation so that both people can maintain national sovereignty while having their core interests met, that slogan is not a dealbreaker for me as long as it means one-person one-vote in an equal binational arrangement, which would end Israel as a Jewish state.However, at NYU and across the country, protestors regularly chanted “From the water to the water, Palestine is Arab” in Arabic. There were chants of “Settlers, settlers [referring to all Israeli Jews] go back home, Palestine is ours alone.” They were justifying and normalizing the egregious crimes Hamas committed against civilians on October 7 and glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis under the banner of “by any means necessary.”The protesters’ dream of a liberated Palestine looked a lot like pure revenge, rather than justice. I understand the desire for revenge, particularly for those between the River and the Sea. But I hold my peers – privileged US-based college students disconnected from the violence and existential antes — to a different standard. I support justice, freedom, liberty for the Palestinian people, but I could not and would not stand by a message filled with so much hate so I never joined the protests.However, I kept sticking around on the outside of the encampment because I did agree with a fair amount of what protesters were saying and wanted to see what was going on. I witnessed and heard many awful things said by both Pro-Palestine protesters and Pro-Israel counterprotesters. But then, something magical happened. I started having conversations with others at the protests where I realized how much we have in common.I realized that a sizable number of people did not in fact want the expulsion, subjugation, or death of Israeli Jews. Most important, these were conversations with Palestinians! In fact, I found the people I had common ground with the most were Palestinians.While eliminationist rhetoric divides us, I believe it is possible for the non-extremists on all sides to unite behind two goals: ending the war and bringing justice, freedom, and equality to Palestinians not at the expense of or dehumanization of Israelis. I believe that this vision could change the face of the earth. I will continue to do whatever small thing I can to make it reality.
      Theo Goldstine is an undergraduate at New York University studying international politics and computer science
      Benjamin Kersten: ‘It’s not antisemitic to criticize Israel’As a Jewish student who participated in the UCLA Palestine solidarity encampment, I find the charge that the encampments are antisemitic to not only be misleading but dangerous. All were welcome in the encampment who abided by the community agreements and engaged in good faith with its demands, including for the university to divest from weapons manufacturers and companies profiting from Israeli violence against Palestinians and to stop repressing pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus.For me, the encampments offered opportunities for Jewish learning and community building. We organized a Passover Seder and observed Shabbat and Havdalah, and we were part of a multicultural, interfaith space – a glimpse of the world we hope to build. Inside the encampment, students learned, imagined, disagreed and recommitted. We recommitted to the values of justice, equality and dignity for all without exception. The world we built was torn apart by outside agitators wielding two-by-fours, by police in riot gear and by UCLA administrators who opted to remain invested in genocide and violently suppress free speech rather than take seriously our calls for freedom for all. It was the administrators, counter-protesters and police that created an unsafe environment – not those protesting for an end to genocide.It is not antisemitic to criticize the state of Israel or to reject Jewish supremacy. The pervasive misidentification of antisemitism hinders our ability to understand and dismantle real antisemitism, which is expressed most violently by an increasingly empowered right wing. As we strive to end all forms of oppression, we must not look away from Gaza. Israel’s devastating assault on Palestine has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and left homes, hospitals and universities destroyed. I advocate for Palestinian freedom because Palestinians, like everyone, deserve to be free, and because our safety and liberation are intertwined.
      Benjamin Kersten is a PhD candidate in art history at UCLA, a fellow at the Leve Center for Jewish Studies and a member of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) at UCLA
      Maya Ilany: ‘By casting out hateful ideas, the protestors can keep the focus on their demands’Student protesters I spoke to at Harvard’s encampment are obviously motivated by an ambition to halt the death and destruction in Gaza, not by antisemitism. But to deliver on that crucial goal, the movement must improve at rejecting hateful and unjust ideas it has played host to on some US campuses.There have been expressions of archetypal antisemitism: like a cartoon of a hand with a Star of David and a dollar sign holding a noose around the neck of two men. Calls for violence against Israelis or “Zionists” have been similarly concerning. It was no less than the leader of Columbia’s student protest who explained why Zionists “don’t deserve to live”.It serves no one to flatly deny these incidents, or to ignore the impact they have on Jewish students and faculty, including many that share the protesters’ views about the war, Israel’s far-right government and the wrongs of the occupation. This denial masquerades as solidarity with Palestinians, but undermines the movement and its aims.By casting out these hateful ideas, the protesters can keep the focus on their just demands. As a longtime campaigner for a two-state solution, I believe some of their demands are not just the wrong ones, but are unjust, unethical and unworkable. Though these calls are protected free speech, I absolutely reject demands that amount to more violence (“globalize the intifada”), the end of a state of Israel (“from water to water, Palestine will be Arab”) or a “repatriation” of Israeli citizens (“go back to Europe”). But while these conversations may be uncomfortable, I am ready to argue for a just resolution to the conflict that allows millions of Israelis and Palestinians to live in dignity.
      Maya Ilany is a graduate student in the MPA program at the Harvard Kennedy School and a research fellow at Molad: the Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy
      Matan Berg: ‘I will continue to advocate for a just peace’Before leaving for the summer, I visited the encampment on “the Diag” in the heart of the University of Michigan’s campus. I brought a banner proudly displaying the flags of both Israel and Palestine. This was my way of expressing support for a negotiated ceasefire and hostage release deal, an end to the cycle of violence, a fight against antisemitism and Islamophobia, a future of mutual self-determination and equality enshrined in a two-state solution, and peace and justice for all Palestinians and Israelis.The reactions I received (a combination of friendly conversations mixed with extreme opposition to dialogue), as well as the general conduct and rhetoric of the encampment, helped me to realize two things. First, I believe this movement is counterproductive and does perpetuate antisemitic tropes. In my view, the messaging at these encampments often justifies and glorifies the attacks of 7 October with chants like “resistance is justified under occupation” and “free Gaza by any means necessary”. Their activism glorifies the actions of terrorists through “teach-ins.” They have even gone as far as to retweet an official statement signed by Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine that thanked Michigan students. All of this is morally reprehensible and antithetical to any rational strategy that can end the plight of the Palestinian people.However, a second thing is also true: it is neither helpful nor right to chastise these encampments and the larger movement they represent as antisemitic. Many of the protestors I interacted with agreed with my goals, even though they often had different beliefs for how to achieve them. Moreover, rebuking a group of people pleading for an end to the deaths of innocent civilians in Gaza by calling every single one of them antisemitic is grossly uncharitable and severely lacks the empathy that we desperately need.I will continue to advocate for a just peace, and I will continue to insist that, as hard as it may seem, this moment is not “us v them”, but rather “all of us – together”.
      Matan Berg is an undergraduate at the University of Michigan and the chair of its chapter of J Street U More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US public school officials push back in congressional hearing on antisemitism

      by

      Some of America’s top school districts rebuffed charges of failing to counteract a surge of antisemitism on Wednesday in combative exchanges with a congressional committee that has been at the centre of high-profile interrogations of elite university chiefs.Having previously grilled the presidents of some of the country’s most prestigious seats of higher learning in politically charged settings, the House of Representatives’ education and workforce subcommittee switched the spotlight to the heads of three predominantly liberal school districts with sizable Jewish populations.The hearing was presented as an investigation into how the authorities were safeguarding Jewish staff and students in an atmosphere of rising bigotry against the backdrop of Israel’s war in Gaza.Calling the need for the hearing “a travesty”, Republican member Aaron Bean from Florida said 246 “very vile” antisemitic acts had been reported in the three districts – in New York City, Montgomery county in Maryland and Berkeley in California – since last October’s attack by Hamas on Israel.“Antisemitism is repugnant in all its forms but the topic of today’s hearing is pretty troubling,” he said. “It’s hard to grasp how antisemitism has become such a force in our kindergarten-through-12 [high] schools.”He cited instances of students marching through corridors chanting “kill the Jews”, a pupil caught on a security camera imitating Hitler and performing the Nazi salute, and Jewish children being told to pick up pennies.The three districts insisted in response that they did not tolerate antisemitism in their schools. They said they had taken educational and disciplinary steps to combat antisemitism following the 7 October attack, which led to an Israeli military offensive in Gaza that has triggered a wave of demonstrations on university campuses and beyond.However, the districts gave divergent answers on whether teachers had been fired for actions deemed antisemitic. Each district has received complaints over their handling of post-7 October allegations of antisemitism.David Banks, the chancellor of the New York City school system, engaged in a testy exchange with Republicans over an episode at Hillcrest high school, whose principal had been removed following a protest against a pro-Israel teacher but had been reassigned to an administrative role rather than fired.The Republican representative, Elise Stefanik – noted for her pointed questioning of three university presidents over free speech at a previous hearing last December – sparred with Banks and accused the school leaders of paying “lip service”.Banks stood his ground and appeared to challenge the committee, saying: “This convening feels like the ultimate ‘gotcha’ moment. It doesn’t sound like people trying to solve for something we actually solve for.”He added: “We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.”Banks said his district had “terminated people” over antisemitism.Karla Silvestre, president of Montgomery county public schools in Maryland – which includes schools in suburbs near Washington – said no teacher had been fired, prompting Bean to retort: “So you allow them to continue to teach hate?”Enikia Ford Morthel, superintendent of the Berkeley unified school district in California, said her authority’s adherence to state and federal privacy laws precluded her from giving details on disciplinary measures taken against staff and students.“As a result, some believe we do nothing. This is not true,” she said.“Since October 7, our district has had formal complaints alleging antisemitism arising from nine incidents without our jurisdiction. However, antisemitism is not pervasive in Berkeley unified school district.”Echoing previous hearings that featured the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia, Bean asked all three district heads whether they considered the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” antisemitic.Each said yes, although Silvestre and Morthel qualified this by saying their affirmation was dependent on whether it meant the elimination of the Jewish population in Israel – an interpretation disputed by many pro-Palestinian campaigners. Bean said tersely: “It does.”Responding to the three opening statements, Bean said: “Congratulations. You all have done a remarkable job testifying. But just like some college presidents before you that sat in the very same seat, they also in many instances said the right thing. They said they were protecting students when they were really not.”The subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, accused Republicans of being selective in their stance against antisemitism, singling out the notorious white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, whose participants chanted “Jews will not replace us”. The then president Donald Trump later said the rally included some “very fine people” .She described one of those who took part, Nick Fuentes, as a “vile antisemite … who denied the scope of the Holocaust”, but noted that Trump hosted him at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Florida in November 2022.“I will offer my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to condemn these previous comments,” Bonamici said. “ Does anyone have the courage to stand up against this?”When committee members remained silent, she said: “Let the record show that no one spoke at this time.” More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican candidate loses US House primary in victory for pro-Israel lobbyists

      by

      Republican John Hostettler has lost his House primary in Indiana, delivering a victory to pro-Israel groups who sought to block the former congressman from returning to Washington. The groups attacked Hostettler as insufficiently supportive of Israel at a time when criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has hit new highs because of the war in Gaza.When the Associated Press called the eighth district primary race at 7.49pm ET, less than an hour after the last polls closed in Indiana, Mark Messmer led his opponents with 40% of the vote. Messmer, the Indiana state senate majority leader, will advance to the general election in November, which he is heavily favored to win because of the district’s Republican leanings. The victor will replace Republican congressman Larry Bucshon, who announced his retirement earlier this year.The primary concludes a contentious race in which pro-Israel groups poured millions of dollars into the district to attack Hostettler, who served in the House from 1995 to 2007. The groups specifically criticized Hostettler’s past voting record on Israel and some comments he made that were deemed antisemitic.In a book that he self-published in 2008 after leaving Congress, Hostettler blamed some of George W Bush’s advisers “with Jewish backgrounds” for pushing the country into the war in Iraq, arguing they were distracted by their interest in protecting Israel.Those comments, combined with Hostettler’s vote opposing a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in 2000, after the start of the second intifada, outraged groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and United Democracy Project (UDP), a Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, UDP spent $1.2m opposing Hostettler while the RJC Victory Fund invested $950,000 in supporting Messmer.One UDP ad attacked Hostettler as “one of the most anti-Israel politicians in America”, citing his vote against the resolution in 2000. The CEO of RJC, Matt Brooks, previously lambasted Hostettler for having “consistently opposed vital aid to Israel [and] trafficked antisemitic conspiracy theories”.But the groups’ interest in a Republican primary is a notable departure from their other recent forays into congressional races. So far this election cycle, UDP has largely used its massive war chest to target progressive candidates in Democratic primaries. UDP spent $4.6m opposing the Democratic candidate Dave Min, who ultimately advanced to the general election, and the group has also dedicated $2.4m to supporting Democrat Sarah Elfreth in Maryland, which will hold its primaries next week.Aipac and its affiliates reportedly plan to spend $100m across this election cycle, so UDP may still get involved in other Republican congressional primaries. However, the groups will likely remain largely focused on Democrats, as Republican lawmakers and voters have generally indicated higher levels of support for Israel since the start of the war in Gaza.A Guardian review of the statements of members of Congress after the start of the war found that every Republican in Congress was supportive of Israel. Even as criticism of Israel’s airstrike campaign in Gaza has mounted, one Gallup poll conducted in March found that 64% of Republicans approve of Israel’s military actions, compared with 18% of Democrats and 29% of independents who said the same.Other polls have shown that most Americans support calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and hopes for a pause in the war did briefly rise this week. Hamas leaders on Monday announced they would accept a ceasefire deal, but Israel soon dashed hopes of peace by launching an operation to take control of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Israel groups target Republican House candidate they deem antisemitic

      by

      Pro-Israel groups are wading into a Republican congressional primary, marking a departure from their recent focus on attacking progressive candidates and offering the latest test of the pro-Israel lobby’s strength as the war in Gaza weighs heavily on voters’ minds.The former Indiana congressman John Hostettler, who served in the House from 1995 to 2007 and will compete in a crowded primary on Tuesday, is looking to return to the chamber to represent the state’s eighth district. Hostettler’s allies praise him as an “America first conservative” who will help terminate financial aid to Ukraine, so his primary will also test Republicans’ embrace of isolationism, which has gained popularity in the party amid the rise of Donald Trump. But Jewish groups have criticized some of his past comments about the start of the Iraq war as antisemitic.Hostettler’s victory is far from assured, as seven other Republicans have launched primary bids and outside groups have already poured millions of dollars into the race.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, the United Democracy Project (UDP) Super Pac, which is affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has spent $1.2m against Hostettler. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Victory Fund has also spent about $950,000 supporting one of Hostettler’s top rivals, the Indiana state senate majority leader, Mark Messmer.Those figures dwarf Hostettler’s own fundraising numbers, as his campaign has reported bringing in $40,635 in donations across the election cycle to date. Messmer brought in nearly 20 times as much, reporting $763,290 in contributions so far.The UDP ad attacks Hostettler as “one of the most anti-Israel politicians in America”, excoriating his past voting record in the House. Both the UDP and the RJC have specifically criticized Hostettler for his vote opposing a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in 2000, after the start of the second intifada, as well as the comments he has made about the origins of the Iraq war.In his self-published book, Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq, Hostettler criticized former president George W Bush for relying on foreign policy advisers “with Jewish backgrounds” in the lead-up to the war, arguing those officials were too focused on the fate of Israel. One review, published by the Jewish Standard in 2008, accused Hostettler of perpetuating “age-old slanders of Jewish disloyalty to their countries”.“We are deeply troubled by John Hostettler’s past record, and RJC is committed to ensuring he does not get back to Congress,” the group’s CEO, Matt Brooks, said last month. “Hostettler has consistently opposed vital aid to Israel, trafficked antisemitic conspiracy theories and voted against a 2000 resolution which supported Israel.”The UDP’s investment in Hostettler’s race marks a notable shift in its spending this election cycle, as the group has largely focused on Democratic primaries so far. In California’s 47th congressional district, the UDP spent $4.6m opposing the Democratic candidate Dave Min, who ultimately advanced to the general election. The group has also spent $2.4m backing the Democrat Sarah Elfreth in the third district of Maryland, which will hold its primaries later this month.The UDP ad against Hostettler also differs from those against progressive candidates such as Min, as it focuses on Hostettler’s approach to Israel. In Democratic primaries, UDP ads have largely highlighted progressive candidates’ personal weaknesses, such as Min’s drunk-driving arrest last year.The choice to highlight Hostettler’s voting record on Israel reflects how Republican voters generally view the Netanyahu government in a more favorable manner than Democrats and independents do. A Guardian review of the statements of members of Congress after the start of the war found that every Republican in Congress was supportive of Israel. According to one Gallup poll conducted in March, 64% of Republicans approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, compared with 18% of Democrats and 29% of independents who said the same.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlthough Hostettler faces an onslaught of spending from pro-Israel groups, other outside organizations have come to his aid in the primary. Two Super Pacs – the American Leadership Pac and the Protect Freedom Pac – have spent more than $790,000 combined to promote Hostettler’s candidacy.But other outside groups have rallied around his opponent Mesmer; the America Leads Action Super Pac has spent roughly $2m opposing Hostettler and more than $100,000 supporting Mesmer. A campaign ad from America Leads Action accuses Hostettler of advancing reckless fiscal policies during his time in Congress.America Leads Action is backed by the wealthy conservative donors Jay Faison and Rob Walton, who is a son of the Walmart founder, Sam Walton. The group has previously spent millions opposing other Republican primary candidates viewed as potential liabilities in a general election, such as Mark Harris of North Carolina and Brandon Gill of Texas.Both Harris and Gill went on to win their primaries anyway. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US House votes to pass antisemitism bill in response to campus protests

      by

      The US House of Representatives has voted to pass an antisemitism awareness bill, a controversial measure sponsored by a New York Republican amid controversy over pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in Manhattan and across the US, as Israel’s war with Hamas drags on.The bill passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support.Mike Lawler’s bill will “provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes”.Democrats opposed it as a messaging bill meant simply to boost Republicans on a hot-button issue and trap Democrats into taking politically awkward votes.The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, telling members: “Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities.“[The bill] is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), which “works to ensure a just, secure and peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis”, has defined the shifting meaning of “antisemitism” in US political discourse.“Traditionally,” the FMEP says, “‘antisemitism’ has meant hostility and prejudice toward Jews because they are Jews – a scourge that has imperiled Jews throughout history, and is a source of resurgent threats to Jews today.“In recent years there has been an energetic effort to redefine the term to mean something else. This new definition – known today as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘working definition of antisemitism’, is explicitly politicised, refocusing the term to encompass not only hatred of Jews, but also hostility toward and criticism of the modern state of Israel.”In the House on Tuesday morning, the Illinois Republican Mary E Miller acted as speaker pro tempore to oversee debate on the Republican antisemitism awareness bill.As a choice, it was not without irony. Miller made headlines in 2021, when as a newly elected member of Congress she was forced to apologise after saying in a speech at the Capitol: “Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’ Our children are being propagandised.”Representatives for Miller did not respond to a Guardian request for comment.Introducing the bill with Lawler sitting beside her, Michelle Fischbach, a Minnesota Republican, said: “Jewish college students have faced increasing antisemitism. And since 7 October there has been an over 300% increase in incidents on campuses.”More than 1,100 people were killed on 7 October, when Hamas attacked Israel. More than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza during the subsequent Israeli offensive.Fischbach continued: “Students are supposed to be protected from harassment. But it has been made abundantly clear that the leaders of these institutions are not going to do anything to stop it. Instead, they are allowing large-scale harassment to reign, forcing Jewish students to stay home. Since these institutions refuse to protect their students, it is time for Congress to take action.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTeresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat from New Mexico, spoke in answer to Fischbach. She quoted Thomas Massie, a rightwing Republican from Kentucky, as saying the bill was “a political trap … designed to split the Democrat [sic] party and get them stuck” on an issue over which the party is divided.Leger Fernandez also said a different bill should be considered, to “designate a senior official at the [US] Department of Education to combat antisemitism on college campuses”.In his own remarks, Lawler listed alleged outrages on college campuses and said: “We must give the Department of Education the tools to identify and prosecute any antisemitic hate crimes committed and hold college administrators accountable for refusing to address antisemitism on their campuses.”Democrats, he said, were “tripping over themselves because of electoral politics” in states with large Muslim populations which traditionally vote Democratic.Debate then descended into back-and-forth over whether the bill was necessary to defend Jewish students, as Republicans claimed, or an illegitimate attack on free speech, however abhorrent that speech might be, as some Democrats said.In closing, Leger Fernandez said: “We need to remind everybody we all condemn 7 October. We all have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation.“We have taken up these resolutions over and over again. And once again, our Republican colleague [Massie] has spoken the truth when he has said that these are sticky resolutions simply intended to divide the Democrats.“Let’s not work on division. Let’s come together in love, and in belief, and [use] our individual strength to push back against the hatred that we see, and to do it in a manner that is not partisan.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The culture war in North Carolina is playing out in the race for governor

      by

      In front of a conservative talkshow host two weeks ago, Mark Robinson, North Carolina’s Republican candidate for governor, was grousing a bit about being snubbed by the state’s Democratic governor on a matter of race.“He talks a lot about diversity, equity and inclusion, but apparently the line for diversity, equity and inclusion stops at the Republican party,” Robinson told Lockwood Phillips. “Roy Cooper has had several chances to congratulate me on the accomplishment of being the first Black lieutenant governor, and he has never taken it.”Phillips, who is white, chuckled, then re-introduced Robinson to the audience, “who by the way is African American, Black, whatever. But, frankly, you don’t wear that. You really do not wear that in our entire conversation.”For a conservative speaking to a Black candidate, this is a compliment. For others, it is a jarring illustration of Robinson’s comfort with accommodating the racial anxieties of white Republicans and with the problematic – and at times inflammatory – rhetoric of the far right.But sitting for interviews and being perceived at all as a Black candidate is a different universe compared to the relative obscurity of Robinson’s life six years ago, before a viral video created his fateful star turn into the conservative cosmos. The former factory worker is now a national name, and drawing national attention, for his flame-throwing slurs against the LGBTQ+ community, antisemitic remarks and derision of other Black people.“The same people who support Robinson are the people who support Trump,” said Shelly Willingham, a Black state legislator from Rocky Mount. “It’s a cult. It’s not necessarily citizens supporting a candidate but following a cult leader.”Robinson’s political career began in an inspired four-minute flash in 2018 in front of the Greensboro city council, as he argued against the city’s effort to cancel a gun show in the wake of the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.“I’ve heard a whole lot of people in here talking tonight about this group, that group, domestic violence, Blacks, these minorities, that minority. What I want to know is, when are you going to start standing up for the majority? Here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen and I’ve never shot anybody,” he said.Robinson, now 55, invoked images of gang members terrorizing people who have given up their weapons under gun-control laws. He said he was there to “raise hell just like these loonies on the left do”.The speech became a social media hit after being shared by Mark Walker, the former North Carolina representative. Robinson drew the attention of the NRA, which was under fire for its callous response to the Parkland shooting and looking for champions.Born into poverty and working in a furniture factory while attending college, Robinson quit his job and dropped out of school to begin speaking at conservative events. (Robinson, if he wins, would be the first North Carolina governor without a college degree elected since 1937.)Robinson beat a host of competitors for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor in 2020, winning about a third of the primary vote. He faced the state representative Yvonne Holley, an African American Democrat from Raleigh. Holley’s campaign focused on North Carolina’s urban territory while largely ignoring rural areas of the state, while Robinson barnstormed through each of the state’s 100 counties. He won narrowly but outperformed Trump’s margin over Biden by about 100,000 votes.View image in fullscreenAt a rally in Greensboro in March before the state’s primary election this year, Trump endorsed Robinson, referring to Robinson as “Martin Luther King on steroids”. But try to imagine King saying something like: “Racism is a tool used by the evil, to build up the ignorant, to try and tear down the strong,” as Robinson wrote in 2017.That sentiment helps explain his initial appeal to white conservatives in a political moment in which rolling back racial justice initiatives has become central to the Republican brand. The right had found the face of a man who could not be easily accused of bigotry, at least not until people began to pay attention to what he said.“He should not be governor of North Carolina or any other place,” said Shirl Mason, who was attending a Black fraternity invocation and scholarship ceremony by Omega Psi Phi for her grandson in Rocky Mount. Her nose wrinkled and her posture shifted at the thought, as she fought for composure in a way people conversant in the manners of church folks would recognize.“He really should not be a politician. Anybody who can say that race did not play a part in the political arena, they should not be in politics at all,” Mason said.Like Trump, Robinson has a litany of provocative outrages in speeches and on social media that have been resurfacing, from referring to school shooting survivors advocating for gun control reforms as “prosti-tots” and “spoiled little bastards”, to describing gay and transgender people as “filth”.Robinson has shared conspiracist comments about the moon landing and 9/11. He has attacked the idea of women in positions of leadership. His swipes at Black culture and public figures are talk-radio fodder, describing Barack Obama as a “worthless anti-American atheist” and suggesting Michelle Obama is a man.“Half of black Democrats don’t realize they are slaves and don’t know who their masters are. The other half don’t care,” he wrote in one Facebook post. He described the movie Black Panther in another as the product of “an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic marxist”, and wrote: “How can this trash, that was only created to pull the shekels out of your schvartze pockets, invoke any pride?”, using a derogatory Yiddish word to refer to Black people.View image in fullscreenThe antisemitism of that comment is not singular. He has repeated common antisemitic tropes about Jewish banking, posted Hitler quotes on Facebook and suggested the Holocaust was a hoax. “There is a REASON the liberal media fills the airwaves with programs about the NAZI and the ‘6 million Jews’ they murdered,” wrote Robinson, with scare quotes around the figure.Robinson’s campaign has pushed back on accusations of antisemitism, citing his support for Israel and criticism of protests against the war in Gaza. But his past comments are likely to be revisited throughout the campaign in no small part because his opponent, Josh Stein, could be the first Jewish governor of North Carolina.The two present a sharp contrast in policy, temperament and experience. After graduating from both Harvard Law and the Harvard Kennedy school of government, Stein managed John Edwards’ successful Senate campaign. Stein then served in the statehouse before winning the attorney general’s race in 2016, becoming the first Jewish person elected to statewide office in North Carolina.Stein, 57, is running as a conventional center-left Democrat. At a stump speech in pastoral Scotland county near the South Carolina line, Stein focused on fighting the opioid-addiction epidemic, the state’s backlog of untested rape kits, clean drinking water and early childhood education. But he had some words about Robinson’s rhetoric.“The voters of North Carolina have an unbelievably stark choice before them this November, between two competing visions,” Stein said in an interview. “Mine is forward and it’s inclusive. It’s about tapping the potential of every person so that they have a chance to succeed where we have a thriving economy, safe neighborhoods, strong schools.“My opponent’s vision is divisive and hateful, and would be job-killing. I mean, he mocks school-shooting survivors. He questions the Holocaust. He wants to defund public education. He wants to completely ban abortion. And he speaks in a way that, frankly, is unfitting of any person, let alone a statewide elected leader.”Is Robinson an antisemite? “There are certainly people who are Jewish who feel that he does not like them,” Stein replied.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“He says vile things. He agreed that Jews were one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. It’s unfathomable to me that someone would hold those beliefs and then feel comfortable saying them out loud.”North Carolina has a relationship with bilious conservatives; this is the state that produced Jesse Helms and Madison Cawthorn. But voters here have a temperamentally moderate streak and a long history of split-ticket voting that also produces the occasional John Edwards or Roy Cooper.In six of the last eight general elections, voters here chose a Democratic governor and a Republican president. Though every lieutenant governor in the last 60 years has run for governor, only three of 11 have won, each a Democrat. The last two attorneys general of North Carolina also have subsequently been elected governor, also both Democrats.But the margins are always maddeningly close. Stein won his first race for attorney general in 2016 – a Trump year – by about 25,000 votes. He won re-election four years later by about half that margin.Cooper, a Democratic moderate, has been a political fixture in North Carolina politics for a generation, and has been able to fend off some of the more radical impulses of Republicans over the years with a combination of veto power and moral suasion.But while Democrats hold the North Carolina governor’s mansion today, Republicans achieved a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers in 2022 after Tricia Cotham, the newly elected state representative, switched parties shortly after winning an otherwise safely Democratic seat. Since that political shock, Cooper’s vetoes have been routinely overcome by a Republican supermajority.North Carolina’s political maps are also notoriously gerrymandered – manipulated in favor of Republicans – but winning two-thirds of house seats in the legislature is an open question in a year where abortion rights are emerging as a driving political issue. As of 1 May, North Carolina will be the only southern state remaining where an abortion can be obtained after six weeks of pregnancy.Given the stakes, Stein’s campaign hopes to avoid the pratfall of tradecraft that led to Robinson’s victory in the lieutenant governor’s race four years ago. For the moment, the tables have turned on the campaign trail in their favor.In one of Robinson’s three bankruptcy filings, reporters discovered that he had failed to file income taxes between 1998 and 2002. Questions have been raised about personal expenses charged to campaign funds from the 2020 race.His wife shuttered a nutrition non-profit after a conservative blogger began to raise questions about the Robinson family’s financial dependence on government contracts. Reporters later learned that the North Carolina department of health and human services is investigating the firm for questionable accounting.In the hothouse of abortion politics this year, video also surfaced of Robinson at a rally in February calling for an eventual ban on abortion. “We got to do it the same way they rolled it forward,” Robinson said. “We got to do it the same way with rolling it back. We’ve got it down to 12 weeks. The next goal is to get it down to six, and then just keep moving from there.”His campaign spokesperson later re-characterized those remarks as support for a ban beyond the six-week “heartbeat” stage of a pregnancy.Robinson acknowledged in 2022 paying for an abortion for his wife 33 years earlier.The question is whether Robinson’s full-throated anti-abortion stance hinders not just his own candidacy but that of Trump. Planned Parenthood plans to double its spending in North Carolina, to $10m, with an eye on defending the governorship and ending a veto-proof Republican legislative majority. Trump, meanwhile, has backed away from publicly endorsing the most extreme abortion bans.Down in the polls, Robinson has until this week apparently kept a light campaign schedule and stayed away from places where a reporter might pick up yet another unscripted comment. With the exception of an appearance at the Carteret County Speedway on 3 April and the radio interview on 9 April, there is scant evidence that Robinson has been campaigning at all since the March primary. A request to his campaign for a list of his recent campaign stops went unanswered, as did requests for an interview or comment for this story.Stein, meanwhile, has been averaging a campaign stop every two days – 22 events since the March primary – showing up in small towns and rural counties across the state. Stein’s father founded North Carolina’s first integrated law firm, and he spent many years in consumer protection and racial equity roles as a lawyer, a point he raises in rural Black communities.“I think his coming here alone says that he understands that he needs rural communities in order to be successful,” said Darrel “BJ” Gibson, vice-chair of the board of commissioners in Scotland county. “And I say it because so many times we get left out of these gatherings, and state candidates don’t understand that.”The question for both Stein and Robinson is whether the bombast of Robinson’s life as a self-described social media influencer will overshadow substantive policy discussions.When Phillips, the conservative talkshow host, asked Robinson in April about how his approach has changed over time, he described Robinson as more Trumpian than Trump.“My message has not changed,” Robinson replied. “Now, I can tell you clearly that my methods have, because I’ve switched buckets. I’ve gone from social media influencer to advocate, to now elected official. But my heart is still in the same place.” More