Several major Jewish organizations rallied around Ron Halber, the CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, after a spokesperson for Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) attacked Halber as an “apologist for the Netanyahu government” and unrepresentative of his community.

The Van Hollen spokesperson’s comments came in response to remarks by Halber to reporters in which Halber said that many in the Maryland Jewish community feel “betrayed” by the senator and that he has failed to show empathy for Israel and the Jewish people.

The JCRC’s Board of Directors, in a statement late Thursday, offered Halber, who has led the group for nearly three decades, its full support, and applauded his work.

“Recent personal attacks leveled against [Ron] by Sen. Chris Van Hollen are undignified, unwarranted, and untrue. Ron and his leadership team have our full backing and support,” the board said in a statement. “In a time marked by division and discord, political leaders should model respectful behavior and discourse. We are deeply disappointed that Sen. Van Hollen chose instead to malign Ron and our organization, but we are heartened by the outpouring of support from so many partners and friends. They know what we know: Ron and the JCRC support not only Jewish families, but the millions of people who live in the DMV.”

William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said he’s known, worked with and respected both Halber and Van Hollen for decades, and that Van Hollen has been his representative for much of that time.

“That is why I am stunned, offended, and frankly angry at Senator Van Hollen’s personal attack on Ron,” Daroff said on X. “Ron is a respected communal leader who has spent decades serving Maryland Jews, advocating for security, and giving voice to a community that is anxious and afraid in this moment of rising hostility.”

He said that Halber’s criticism was “not partisan” and was at its core a call for empathy for Israeli lives, Israel’s security dilemmas and the “vulnerability so many Maryland Jews feel today,” but was “met instead with derision.”

“We can disagree about Israeli policy. We can debate strategy and tone. But labeling American Jews as apologists when they challenge you is not discourse. It is a smear. It cheapens the conversation at a time when Jewish anxiety is real and rising, and when we need leaders who hear us rather than dismiss us,” Daroff said. “Our community deserves respect. We deserve empathy. We deserve partnership grounded in good faith. We will speak up for those expectations.”

The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington, another major D.C.-area Jewish umbrella organization, also offered support for “the vital role Ron Halber and the JCRC of Greater Washington play in advocating for Israel, Jewish safety, belonging, and connection across Greater Washington.”

“Ron has worked tirelessly for years to build a stronger Jewish community and Greater Washington region,” the organization continued. “At a time of extreme divisiveness in our society, our public officials should not be contributing to these divides through personal attacks.”

AIPAC said the statement by Van Hollen’s team was “shameful.”

“Disagreeing with you, Senator, doesn’t make American Jews apologists for a foreign leader,” the group said on X. “Resorting to this tired and toxic trope only reflects the shallowness of the Senator’s arguments.”

The Jewish Federations of North America, the umbrella group that represents hundreds of Jewish communities and groups around the country, said in a statement that it “stand[s] with our esteemed colleague Ron Halber … following the deeply troubling personal attack leveled against him.”

“Ron and [the JCRC of Greater Washington] understand and speak for their community, and their well-documented concerns should be listened to and addressed on the merits,” JFNA continued. “We are grateful to all the public officials in the Greater Washington DC area who are engaged in productive conversations and collaborations with the Jewish community.”

Yehuda Kurtzer, the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute, called the statement “unconscionable” and said Halber deserves an apology from Van Hollen.

“Politicians need to have thicker skins in responding to criticism, especially when it is directed at them by respected representatives of minority communities. That’s part of the job,” Kurtzer said on Facebook. “Van Hollen has the right to cut off contact with the organized Jewish community even though I think that’s a toxic political choice. But he should not respond publicly like this.”

He added that, “to characterize a pro-Israel view as an apologetic for a foreign government is to evoke unfounded suspicion of foreign interference and to cast the[m] as therefore ‘un-American.’ This is dangerous stuff and politicians shouldn’t do it.”

Halber’s counterparts in other parts of the country have also rallied to his defense. “The contempt with which [Sen. Van Hollen] showed for Ron, the DC JCRC, and the Jewish community is unacceptable. He needs to apologize,” Tyler Gregory, the CEO of the Bay Area JCRC, said.

Jeremy Burton, the CEO of the Boston JCRC said that “Labeling American Jews as ‘apologists’ just because you disagree with them & their (our) attachment to the Israeli people is unacceptable” and also called on Van Hollen to apologize.

Amy Spitalnick, who leads the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, lamented both Van Hollen’s attack on Halber as well as New York Jewish figures’ criticisms of Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.

“We can’t even engage without resorting to ad hominem attacks. A Senator’s office calls a respected Jewish community professional an ‘apologist for Netanyahu.’ Multiple leaders call the Mayor-elect an ‘enemy of the Jewish people,’” Spitalnick said. “Countering antisemitism and hate, protecting democracy, advancing peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians all require us to engage — not disparage and smear — even and especially when we disagree. This is all so dangerous.”

Rabbi Yaakov Menken, executive vice president of the Coalition for Jewish Values, said that “This was a display of bigotry unbecoming a US senator. [Van Hollen] owes the entire community, and especially [Halber], an apology.

Though he did not address the situation or the senator directly, Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore — who addressed a JCRC legislative breakfast the same day as Halber and Van Hollen’s comments and offered praise and thanks to Halber — also reaffirmed his partnership with the D.C. JCRC in an X post on Thursday.

“There’s no higher goal for me than ensuring people feel safe where they live, work, and worship. That’s why our administration is fully committed to combating antisemitism in all its forms, and why I’m proud to announce that my upcoming budget proposal will preserve historic funding for hate crime protection grants,” Moore said, alongside a photograph from his speech in front of a JCRC banner. “Thank you to @JCRCgw for your partnership in this work.”

Eileen Filler-Corn, the Jewish and Democratic former speaker of the Virginia House, said on Facebook that she’s “offended by the personal attack directed at Ronald Halber,” describing him as a “respected leader in our Jewish community” and an “essential” advocate for the community.

“We can and should have healthy debates about the Israeli government and disagreement is part of a vibrant democracy, but labeling American Jews as ‘apologists’ for Netanyahu simply because they express support for the State of Israel is unacceptable, unproductive and entirely out of line,” Filler-Corn said. “Our community is hurting. We are being targeted and antisemitism is surging. At a moment like this, personal attacks on those who advocate for our safety and dignity do nothing but deepen the pain.”

Van Hollen does have some defenders in the Jewish community. Hadar Suskind, the CEO of the left-wing Israel advocacy group New Jewish Narrative, praised Van Hollen’s engagement since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks and with the war in Gaza.

“Chris has always been there for his Jewish constituents and in support of the people of Israel,” Susskind said on X. “But you know what, like the majority of Marylanders, including Jewish Marylanders, he disagrees with many of the policies and actions of the Netanyahu government. And he is 100% right to do so and to say so.”

“As American Jews who care about Israel we should want all of our elected officials [to] do what Senator Van Hollen is doing, speak the difficult truths that need to be told and support a better future for Israelis and Palestinians,” he continued. “​​The days of demanding that elected officials ‘pick a side’ and show loyalty to ‘one team’ are over.”

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR), in a letter to Portland’s Jewish community, apologized for a recent House floor speech in which she appeared to compare the war in Gaza to the Holocaust while explaining her support for a resolution describing the war as a genocide.

According to local reporting, Dexter, who represents a wide swath of Portland, told Jewish leaders in a private meeting she intends to remain a co-sponsor of that resolution.

“I am reaching out with humility and appreciation that intent and impact can sometimes be quite different, and I recognize and take responsibility for the harm I have done to the trust I have with many in our Jewish community,” Dexter said in the letter, first shared by the Jewish Review, a publication affiliated with the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland. “I am deeply sorry that my recent statement on the U.S. House floor gave the impression that I was equating the Holocaust with the evolving events in Gaza.”

Dexter said that she “should not have discussed” the war in Gaza and the Holocaust “during the same speech” and acknowledged that the speech “gave many the impression I was comparing them” when she did not intend to do so. She said that the Holocaust “is without comparison.”

“In the aftermath of Hamas’ atrocious attack on October 7th and in the face of rising antisemitism that is pervasive in every corner of the world, I am genuinely sorry to have been the cause of further pain,” Dexter continued. “I am mindful of the remaining living survivors of the Holocaust and certainly many, many family members of victims and survivors who I may have hurt. I want to apologize to them for how my words may have been hurtful toward them or disrespectful of their loved ones’ memories.”

Dexter said that she remains committed to supporting Oregon’s Jewish community and Israel’s right to exist, and pledged to “work to do better in the future” to consider how her words may impact the community.

“Clearly, I could have done better. I will continue to come to the Jewish community, those both in support and in opposition to my views, to expand my understanding and sit in honest discourse with you, to hopefully build greater trust and understanding with time,” Dexter continued. “You have my commitment to standing up against antisemitism and for the needs of our Jewish community today — and every day.”

Dexter also met directly with and apologized to members of the Jewish community, including Jewish Federation of Greater Portland CEO Marc Blattner and Bob Horenstein, chief community relations and public affairs officer, according to the Jewish Review article.

Horenstein told the Jewish Review that the meeting was a “candid and difficult discussion” and said that Dexter offered regret for her “poor choice of words,” but that she said she would not withdraw her support for the resolution accusing Israel of genocide.

“In the meeting, Rep. Dexter reinforced Israel’s right to exist and to self-defense. However, she believed the Netanyahu government went too far and thus would not withdraw her co-sponsorship of the misguided congressional resolution. On the issue of the Holocaust comparison, she listened intently and we believe her apology was heartfelt,” Horenstein said. “We look forward to working with her and being a resource to her moving forward.”

Dexter was first elected in 2024, beating back a far-left challenger with assistance from AIPAC’s United Democracy Project. Though she offered a broadly pro-Israel platform in 2024, she has since swung left, also calling for a halt to offensive weapons transfers to the Jewish state.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts apologized in a staff meeting on Wednesday for  his video last week defending Tucker Carlson and refusing to “cancel” neo-Nazi leader Nick Fuentes, saying that the video was the result of internal failures of communication and consultation that left too few people involved in its production.

Roberts and other Heritage leaders also repeatedly made reference to a plan under development for how Heritage will approach its relationship with Carlson going forward, amid strong pressure from numerous staff members to forcefully disavow the right-wing podcast host  and his activities, but provided little clarity about what that approach will entail and sidestepped the full-throated denunciation of Carlson that several Heritage staffers sought.

In opening remarks, Roberts said ultimate responsibility for the video lay with him, but that Heritage’s former chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus, who recently resigned, was responsible for writing the script. Roberts also criticized Neuhaus for retweeting a post saying that those upset by Roberts’ video should resign.

Roberts said that he himself was willing to resign but that he also felt a “moral obligation” to stay on to clean up the “mess” he created.

Roberts said that the video was the result of a “short circuited” process which violated Heritage’s “one voice” policy, adding that he wrongly believed the script had been approved by others in Heritage’s leadership, but that he should have personally checked in with colleagues.

“Some of the substance, maybe most of the substantive points, are things that I and I think we believe, but there are a couple of pain points that I want to address specifically,” Roberts said. 

He said that the intention of the video was to address public and private pressure on Heritage to disavow Carlson as well as to denounce the antisemitic and otherwise “grotesque” stances maintained by Fuentes, the latter of which he addressed in a separate post following backlash to his video. 

But Roberts also largely pleaded ignorance about both Carlson and Fuentes’ views and content in the staff meeting. Roberts’ video remains on his X profile.

“About ‘no cancelation,’ is there a limiting principle to that? I should have said that there was, especially in light of Tucker hosting not just Fuentes, but a handful of other people,” Roberts said. “You can say you’re not going to participate in canceling someone — a personal friend, an institutional friend — while also being clear you’re not endorsing everything they’ve said. You’re not endorsing softball interviews. You’re not endorsing putting people on shows. And I should have made that clear.”

At the same time, Roberts also indicated that he had engaged privately with Carlson about objectionable content on his show in the past, including Carlson’s hosting of Holocaust revisionist Daryl Cooper.

Roberts repeatedly alluded to plans in development to clarify the relationship between Heritage and Carlson, and said that a variety of senior Heritage staff will be involved in developing those plans. He said he does not approve of much of Carlson’s recent activity, but generally withheld direct rebuke.

“I made the mistake of conflating too much the personal friendship I have with Tucker — although I want to be really clear, I don’t think that everything, or maybe even most, of what he does now is helpful or good — but conflating that with, particularly the word ‘always,’ as the institution,” Roberts said. “Even the institution can say, ‘Tucker will be a friend,’ but that’s different than saying that you endorse everything your friend does.”

Addressing revelations that Heritage had a paid partnership with Carlson, Roberts noted that the partnership ended this summer, and that Heritage had similar arrangements with various other media figures including Fox News commentator Mark Levin, who has spoken out against Carlson’s antisemitism.

Roberts said that his approach in the video and going forward was and will be driven, in some capacity, by a desire to appeal to and “drive a wedge” between Fuentes and followers of his who might be persuadable or do not share Fuentes’ bigotry.

“Fuentes … has an audience of several million people. At least some of that audience might be open to be converted. My video didn’t do that, although the intention was to open that idea — not to endorse what Fuentes was saying, but quite the opposite, to appeal to them,” Robert said. “There’s a segment of that audience who might be with us, and they really are not Nazis and antisemites, then maybe we can eventually bring them into the fold.”

Roberts offered an apology for the specific terminology he used in describing Carlson’s critics as a “venomous coalition,” saying he did not intend to invoke antisemitic tropes. 

A staffer later pressed him on his description of Carlson’s critics as a “globalist class and their mouthpieces,” which the staffer said also seemed to be an antisemitic trope. Roberts apologized for those comments as well, and said his use of “globalist” was meant differently.

“I misread the situation and the advice that I got,” Roberts said. “I took the advice. I didn’t stop. I own that. [It] was bad, and I should have been better in that moment.”

During a Q&A with Heritage staff, Roberts faced frustration and disappointment from a series of Heritage staffers, some of whom said they had lost confidence in his leadership and argued that both the initial video and his subsequent response and belated apology had been insufficient and wrongheaded. Many said that Heritage needed to make a clear and unequivocal statement disavowing Carlson in order to move forward.

“Only after it became clear that Ryan falling on his sword would be insufficient to quell the outrage, both inside and outside of this building, did we finally see you manage the courage to utter the words, ‘I made a mistake,’” Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Heritage, said. “It took you four days to say that, and even then, the mistake was couched largely in terms of, ‘Well, I’m sorry you guys just didn’t really understand the words that were coming out of my mouth, and maybe I should have spoken better, but also maybe try to listen better.’ With all due respect, Dr. Roberts, we all understood what you said in the video and in the ensuing response.”

Swearer also charged that Roberts has continued to avoid going after Carlson directly.

“We watched you seem perfectly willing to attack all of our friends and allies on the right, but say nothing about the guy who just said he dislikes nothing more than Christian Zionists,” she continued. “We watched this sort of incoherent defense for days of, ‘Well, we can’t participate in cancel culture, and anyone who attacks Tucker is participating in cancel culture, but also we’re going to attack the people who are participating in that cancel culture, and that’s not cancel culture.’”

Several staffers said that the video and the fallout from it had severely damaged Heritage’s reputation and partnerships with other institutions, that serious work would be needed throughout the organization to repair that damage and that Heritage had thus far failed to articulate any such plan or clearly disavow Carlson after nearly a week.

“It has been six days, almost a week, where we as an organization have been unable to utter the words … ‘Tucker’s an antisemite and we as Heritage do not want to associate with him,’” Daniel Flesch, a senior policy analyst at Heritage involved in its Middle East and antisemitism work, said. “We still do not have a statement about that. … We are bleeding trust, reputation, perhaps donors, who knows what else — support.”

“If the Heritage Foundation and you do not dump Tucker Carlson publicly, we are not going to repair that damage,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at Heritage, said, adding that it would be unworkable to make a public distinction between Carlson being a personal friend of Roberts versus being a friend of Heritage as an institution.

While the majority of those who raised questions during the meeting were deeply critical of Carlson, a pair of staffers stood out as taking a different stance 

One, describing herself as a member of Gen Z, said that she and many young staffers agreed with Roberts’ video. She also claimed that charges of antisemitism against Carlson were driven by his opposition to foreign intervention.

“Gen Z has an increased unfavorable view of Israel, and it’s not because millions of Americans are antisemitic,” the staffer said. “It’s because we are Catholic and Orthodox and believe that Christian Zionism is a modern heresy. We believe it does go against church doctrine and the teachings of the early church fathers to use Christianity as a defense for a secular nation.”

Roberts responded that Heritage must be “agnostic” on theological questions of Christian Zionism. 

Derek Morgan, Heritage’s executive vice president, added that Heritage’s institutional position is that, “Israel has been a great ally of the United States” and that, “When it’s in the American interest to support the nation of Israel, we will do so.”

Another staffer, Evan Myers, raised particular concern about a request from the Heritage-aligned National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, that young Heritage staffers be offered the opportunity to attend Shabbat dinners as a space for education.

Myers said that doing so would violate his and others’ religious beliefs and that he was concerned that attendance at such events would be used as a “litmus test.” He further suggested that those involved in the task force would leak to the media the names of those who declined to participate.

Victoria Coates, vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at Heritage and a board member of the task force, said she took offense with Myers’ characterization of the request.

“This was a recommendation … That was an open offer from the task force. It was made in generosity of spirit and in the hopes of increased dialogue on this issue,” Coates said. “And Evan, I’m deeply sorry that you could not see that as a generous offer, but rather a personal attack on you. It was not.”

Roberts expressed frustration that communications between himself and members of the antisemitism task force had been shared with the press.

“It’s hard for me and for this institution to consider recommendations when we can’t do that privately,” Roberts said. “I just want to let you know as we move forward on a detailed plan … it’s got to be under the terms that we get to have the conversations privately.”

As the buzz around pop singer Demi Lovato’s recent trip to Israel continues to reverberate, the funders and organizers of her visit are remaining tight-lipped about everything — including their identities. Meanwhile rumors, inaccuracies and sensationalizing have kept the story in the headlines both in Israel and around the world. 

Who initiated and funded Lovato’s trip? Was she paid to come to Israel? Why did she visit, apologize and then delete the apology? 

While the majority of the trip organizers refused to speak publicly, Jewish Insider interviewed several figures associated with Lovato’s visit to make sense of the situation.   

Lovato — a 27-year-old Grammy-nominated singer with six studio albums, several top 10 singles and more than 74 million Instagram followers — paid a quiet visit to Israel last month, touring the country from top to bottom. Upon her return to the United States, she uploaded three Instagram posts about her trip, calling Israel “absolutely magical” and writing that she is “grateful for the memories” made during her visit. 

Unsurprisingly, Lovato was bombarded with negative feedback from BDS advocates and anti-Israel activists, which led her to post and quickly delete an apology on her Instagram story. “I’m sorry if I’ve hurt or offended anyone, that was not my intention,” she wrote. “This was meant to be a spiritual experience for me, NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT and now I realize it hurt people and for that I’m sorry.” 

Yediot Aharonot originally reported that Lovato was paid $150,000 to visit Israel — a third of which was funded by the Israeli government — a claim that reverberated among BDS activists. But the newspaper later quietly edited its article, saying instead that the trip — which was free for the singer — cost $150,000 overall. 

“As far as I know, [Lovato] didn’t receive a shekel to come here,” Moish Yaul, the spokesman for the Jerusalem Affairs Ministry, told JI. Rather, he said, the costs of the trip for her and her entourage were fully covered by several sources. Yaul said that the Jerusalem and Foreign Ministries together contributed around 200,000 shekel (approximately $57,000), and the rest was paid for by other private donors. During her visit, Lovato toured the City of David accompanied by Jerusalem Affairs Minister Ze’ev Elkin. 

A Los Angeles-based source familiar with the details of the trip said the original Yediot report was “totally bogus.” Lovato herself commented on an Instagram post that cited Yediot’s reporting and denied she was ever paid: “This is actually not true at all,” she wrote. “This is in fact a lie. I never got paid. Simple.” 

The popular singer was accompanied on the trip by her mother, Dianna De La Garza, who made it clear even after Lovato’s deleted apology that she had no regrets about the trip. 

“We celebrated life and Christianity as we learned about the Jewish faith while listening to the Muslim Call to Prayer,” De La Garza wrote on Instagram alongside a photo of her and Lovato at the Western Wall. “There was no fighting, no judgement, no cruel words…only love. And I will undoubtedly, unapologetically go again one day.”  

Industry insiders speculate that Lovato removed the apology post quickly because it violated a confidentiality agreement signed ahead of the trip. The singer was likely told not to reveal, as she did in the Instagram story, that she “accepted a free trip to Israel in exchange for a few posts.” One source familiar with the trip said that the funders themselves likely also signed a confidentiality agreement, explaining their reluctance to speak publicly about the trip. 

Ari Ingel, the director of the Creative Community for Peace nonprofit, said while his organization was not involved in planning Lovato’s trip, it was disheartening to see how things played out. 

“These weren’t her fans leaving messages, these were boycott activists, bots and trolls who were targeting her and her fans, in a successful attempt to turn her influential social media feed into their own bully pulpit,” said Ingel. “She took a spiritual trip to Israel, like millions of people every year, from all faiths and backgrounds, and boycott activists hijacked her social media page to turn it into something political.” 

Ingel said CCFP — who were part of the team that brought actress and singer Hailee Steinfeld to Israel this summer — would have better prepared Lovato for the response she might face: “We would have advised that she disabled comments on all three [Instagram] posts from the beginning.”

Ashley Perry, the president of Reconectar, which seeks to reconnect the descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Jewish communities, met with Lovato and her mother while they were in Israel. 

“Apparently she had done a DNA test in the past, and found out she had significant Jewish ancestry,” Perry said. Lovato met with Perry to explore that, and told him about her maternal family name and her family’s geographic roots. “It was clear to me that they definitely have Sephardic Jewish ancestry,” he said. “They were very, very excited and very, very interested and it seems like — from the meeting — they were interested to learn more.”

Perry, a veteran of the Foreign Ministry and longtime political advisor, said it was unfortunately no surprise that Lovato faced such a backlash.

“I know for a fact that they did prepare her, and she was aware that there are active forces who will try and get her to distance herself from the trip,” he said. “But no one can prepare you for the barrage of bloody pictures people post, claiming to be from Gaza but often from other Middle Eastern wars. Nothing can prepare you for that. The pictures are almost all a lie, but someone who’s not familiar with this sort of tactic will understandably will feel quite upset.” 

Perry said it was his understanding that the government contributed around $50,000 toward the costs of the trip, but that “neither Demi Lovato herself nor anyone around her was paid.” 

The organizers and backers of the trip, Perry said, “prefer not to be named.” 

Israel Schachter, the co-founder and CEO of CharityBids, which organizes travel adventures for charity auctions and nonprofits, shared a Facebook post about Lovato’s trip before the backlash, implying he played a role in her visit. “Thanks to Shalva National Center, Aish HaTorah, Eitiel Goldwicht, City of David, Ancient Jerusalem, Yad Vashem: World Holocaust Center, Jerusalem and the many, many, other people and organizations who were involved in making this happen,” he wrote. 

Contacted by JI, Schachter said he does “not wish to comment any further on the matter, nor am I at liberty to discuss any of the details.” 

And Lovato herself continued to be on the defense about the trip and its fallout, replying to posts from fans and others across Instagram. 

“I don’t have an opinion on Middle Eastern conflicts,” she commented on one Instagram post, “nor is it my place to have one being an American singer and you’re asking me to choose a side?”