William Lawrence, a virulent Israel critic gaining momentum among progressives in Michigan’s battleground 7th Congressional District, is facing a wave of criticism over past comments denigrating Black political leadership, attacking former Vice President Kamala Harris.

As a result, Lawrence is now facing the opposition of an outside group aiming to block  him from winning the Democratic nomination.

The swing district, currently held by Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI),  is a critical pick-up opportunity for Democrats in order to take back the House. It was previously held by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and is currently rated by the Cook Political Report as a toss-up.

On the campaign trail, Lawrence has called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel and accused the country of genocide, something that the other Democratic candidates, former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink, have declined to do.

During a candidate forum, Lawrence said that Israel “has refused every other form of accountability and we continue to arm them.”

“I don’t know how we can call ourselves a just nation, and my heart is pounding becasue it is dispiriting in our politics to see how many people still refuse” to call Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide, he said in response to the other candidates. “I support a lasting peace for all Palestinians and Israelis. Everybody deserves to live with security and in comfort. We got a lot of work to do with them.”

He said in September 2025 that the war in Gaza involved “war crimes on an historic scale,” adding that it’s a “moral necessity” to stop arming Israel, which is also “the best leverage the U.S. has to end the genocide in Gaza, apartheid conditions in the West Bank, ensure the hostages are finally freed, and move towards a lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis.”

Asked on the campaign trail whether he views the Iranian regime as “evil,” Lawrence said he did not. “I do not believe any regime in the world is wholly good or wholly evil,” Lawrence said.

He has also called Israel’s operations in Lebanon “a war of aggression and territorial expansion” and said that the situation in Gaza constitutes an “ongoing genocidal siege,” despite the ceasefire and provision of humanitarian aid.

As early as Oct. 9, 2023, Lawrence condemned a public statement by American and European leaders denouncing the Hamas attacks and supporting Israel’s efforts to defend itself.

“This looks like a green light for Israel to bombard Gaza with impunity, regardless of the civilian toll or risk of a regional war. Scary hours. I fear for where this will end up,” Lawrence said.

Maasdam and Brink are preferred by moderate Democrats to face off against Barrett.

Lawrence is a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, the far-left climate movement that has since refocused significantly on anti-Israel activism. He has also made opposition to data center construction a key feature of his campaign.

Lawrence has recently landed in hot water and faced condemnation from leaders and groups including the Congressional Black Caucus PAC over past comments in which he described Black political leaders as a “pillar” of the “establishment, capitalist, imperialist American power” who “[defang] the white left.” The CBC PAC called Lawrence a “national disgrace” and demanded that Lawrence’s supporters withdraw their backing.

The progressive candidate said that his comments had been “taken out of context” but the “way I made this point was clumsy, and I regret my choice of words.” He said that his comments were in response to “Black elected leaders in D.C. [who] have been among those supporting unnecessary U.S. wars and foreign intervention” and “my horror at the genocide in Gaza.”

He also described former Vice President Harris, Slotkin and Michigan Democratic Party chair Curtis Hertel, who ran for the seat in 2024, as “warmongers.” He said voting for Harris made him “sick” and was the “second or third circle of hell,” also calling her “despicable” and her campaign “cowardly.”

The 35-year-old progressive has gained attention in the past few weeks, picking up the backing of leaders including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), far-left Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and left-wing Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Delia Ramirez (D-IL) and Maxwell Frost (D-FL), as well as former Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) and Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb, the Democratic nominee for a Philadelphia House seat.

Lawrence is also backed by the anti-Israel group TrackAIPAC, which has been accused of antisemitism; the Working Families Party; the Congressional Progressive Caucus; Sunrise Movement; and the Sanders-linked Our Revolution.

In a sign of concern from opponents about his momentum, Lawrence is now the target of a more than $500,000 ad buy from Crush MAGA PAC, which seeks to paint Lawrence as corrupt and unreliable.

The ad cites his support for the Uncommitted movement opposing former President Joe Biden in the 2024 primaries, work with Sunrise Movement (which the ad describes as a dark money group) and his holdings in a mutual fund (which the ad describes as investments in “Wall Street, big oil, and data centers”).

Lawrence asserted that AIPAC and Democratic Party insiders were responsible for the ad, something a United Democracy Project spokesperson denied, further suggesting that Lawrence’s comments were motivated by prejudice.

“We have absolutely no involvement in any way in running ads against William Lawrence in MI-07. It’s pure fiction and dishonest,” Patrick Dorton, spokesperson for UDP, the AIPAC-linked super PAC, said. “This assertion raises the question of whether Lawrence is trying to stir up some base prejudice in the Democratic primary against Democrats who support Israel. It’s immoral and shameful.”

The influx of outside cash will further compound Lawrence’s fundraising struggles. As of the end of April, Brink led the field with $2.3 million raised and $1.3 million on hand, followed by Maasdam with $1.7 million raised and $937,000 on hand and Lawrence with $572,000 raised and $351,000 on hand.

“Lawrence has the progressive lane to himself, the open question is how valuable that lane actually is outside of Lansing/East Lansing,” Michigan Democratic strategist Adrian Hemond told Jewish Insider. “[Michigan State University] students don’t come back until after the primary, so he’s reliant on high youth turnout to overcome his disadvantages with Black voters and seniors, but a sizable portion of the potential youth vote is home for summer break, i.e. not in East Lansing.”

But he also acknowledged that Brink and Maasdam risk splitting the more moderate lane.

In a potential acknowledgement of the political unpopularity of the war in Iran, Barrett has been one of the few House Republicans who has broken ranks with his party on Iran war powers votes, siding with Democrats to advance such measures.

Barrett also introduced legislation that would provide a limited authorization for military operations against Iran, limited in time and scope.

A Massachusetts middle school principal apologized to Arab, Lebanese, Muslim and Palestinian students who he claimed “felt unseen” during a lesson on antisemitism. 

The Lexington Observer, a local outlet, reported Thursday that Diamond Middle School Principal Johnny Cole was referring to a lesson on antisemitism and his apology was not about a lesson on the Holocaust, as originally interpreted by some Jewish leaders and parents. 

Instead, Cole was referencing a lesson on modern antisemitism taught by a third-party Jewish group called TribeTalk. According to the outlet, a dozen families objected to the group using materials from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate — an advocacy group founded by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who is a supporter of Israel — prompting Cole’s letter. In a message sent to seventh graders via a school portal, a screenshot of which was obtained by Jewish Insider, Cole said the lesson was aimed at teaching the students to recognize hate and to speak out against it, something he called “an important goal.” Cole then apologized after he said some students’ families had expressed that the lesson left them feeling “unseen.”

“Some of you felt like your own history, your identity, or your community was left out or erased. Some of you left that session feeling less safe, not more. We have heard this from families, and we believe you,” Cole wrote.

“We are sorry. Not because the topic was too hard; hard conversations are part of growing up and part of what we do here at Diamond. We are sorry because every one of you deserves to walk into this school and feel that who you are matters — Arab students; Jewish students; Lebanese students; Muslim students; Palestinian students — every student. And in this case, we missed the mark and did not achieve what we hoped to do,” he added.

Cole said that the school was working with teachers and families to “build something better” that “includes all of our communities and all of our histories.” 

Local Jewish organizations — some of which also initially thought the letter was referring to a Holocaust lesson — condemned the letter and sought dialogue with school leadership to address the community’s concerns. “We now understand that the letter itself — which, as written, was deeply disturbing and offensive to many members of our Jewish community — was in fact poorly worded and not reflective of the facts and context,” the JCRC said in a statement. 

Scott Gladstone, associate director of the American Jewish Committee New England region, told JI he sent an email to Cole on Wednesday morning, offering to talk, and had not received a response as of Wednesday afternoon. 

Samantha Joseph, Anti-Defamation League New England regional director told JI,  “We’re aware of reports of a concerning response to a Holocaust education program in Lexington, and we’re in contact with community members about the situation.” The Lexington Public School District, which serves roughly 7,000 students across its nine schools, did not respond to requests for comment from JI. 

A similar incident occurred earlier this month, according to Teagan Murtagh, an 8th grader at Diamond Middle School, who wrote in a letter to the editor in the Lexington Observer that he was stopped in the hallway by Cole and told not to wear a black sweatshirt printed with a four-line poem: “Save the bees.  Plant more trees. Clean the seas. Punch Nazis.” Cole reportedly said some students had complained and felt “threatened” by the sweatshirt. 

Last year, Jewish leaders in Massachusetts praised a new report and set of recommendations by The Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism that called for K-12 schools to implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.

This story was updated on June 29 to reflect the lesson’s contents on antisemitism, per The Lexington Observer‘s report.

The report noted a sharp rise of antisemitism in the state’s K-12 schools since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and acknowledges that there has been significant harm to the mental health of Jewish and Israeli students and families caused by antisemitic incidents. It also noted inconsistencies in how districts respond to concerns around antisemitism, with some responding inadequately and others failing to respond at all.

Vice President JD Vance warned pro-Israel advocates against seeing Israel and the U.S. as always aligned and cautioned against conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, saying that “if everything is Jew hatred, then nothing is Jew hatred.”

In an episode of Christian conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey’s podcast podcast released on Friday, Vance said that “pro-Israel people in the United States make two critical mistakes. One … is not delineating between America’s interests and Israeli interests, because they’re not always the same.”

“But the second is conflating criticism of a particular government with Jew hatred. Because if everything is Jew hatred, then nothing is Jew hatred,” he continued. “And we have to be very careful not to, you know, in order to serve a certain foreign policy objective, try to criticize somebody as antisemitic when they’re just not.”

Asked by Stuckey if Israel has an “outsized influence in the U.S.,” Vance said, “I certainly think that Israel, like a lot of other countries, tries to influence American politics. I sort of take that as a given. And what I think is that American leaders have to be very careful that when we pursue something, we’re doing it for America’s best interest and not for any other country’s best interest.”

Vance added that the late conservative influencer Charlie Kirk “was very worried about Israeli influence in American politics. He also really disliked antisemitism.”

Stuckey raised the “the obsession that some people have, I would say on the right, with blaming all of their problems on Israel, all of their disagreements with Trump on some secret Israeli influence,” which she said she sees “more prominently on the right than I see the true ‘Israel first’ kind of obsession that you seem to be describing.”

“I see both, and I think both are bad,” Vance responded. But he said he’s “particularly sensitive” to what he views as the elevation of Israel’s interests because he’s “been defending the president’s decision to end the Iran [war], and I find often the arguments are, ‘Well, Israel doesn’t think this is good, therefore it’s bad.’ And my reaction is: Israel’s opinions matter, but fundamentally they are separate.”

“But you’re right. I mean, there are certainly people who take every frustration with the Trump administration, every policy disagreement becomes because of Israel, and that is absolutely wrong. And again, I think that that is one of those things that can bleed into some very dark places,” he continued.

Vance also defended the emerging deal with Iran, prior to departing over the weekend for direct negotiations with Tehran’s representatives in Switzerland. “You do still have terrorist elements within the regime, but you also have pragmatic elements within the regime who are actually affirmatively trying to have a better relationship with the United States,” he said.

Far-left antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker, replying to a video of Vance’s comments about criticism of the Israeli government and antisemitism, wrote on X, “I GOT BANNED FROM THE UK FOR SAYING THIS VERBATIM BTW.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a leading critic of Israel in the Senate, publicly confirmed for the first time this week, after visits to key primary states, that he is considering a 2028 presidential bid — and argued that criticism of Israel should be a key litmus test for the emerging field.

Van Hollen has become an increasingly outspoken and virulent voice against Israel in the Senate  and taken trips to states that will play a pivotal role in the 2028 presidential primary, fueling speculation that he is scoping out a presidential run. 

“I went to New Hampshire because I was invited, but I would say kind of kicking the tires a little bit,” Van Hollen said on the “On NOTUS” podcast this week.

Asked whether he thinks any Democratic presidential candidate will be viable without criticizing Israel and supporting conditioning aid to the Jewish state, Van Hollen responded, “I think a Democratic presidential candidate should believe in the United States’ foreign policy based on advancing our values and our interests. And if you want to advance our values, you cannot apply one set of standards just to our adversaries and another to our friends and be taken seriously in the world about it.”

“I think any credible Democratic presidential candidate has to be willing to hold the government of Israel accountable when it’s violating human rights and violating international law and violating US interests because the Israeli-Palestinian issue, conflict goes to the heart of so much of the instability that we’ve encountered and paid for in the United States over decades,” Van Hollen continued.

He also argued that any Biden-era officials who don’t “plainly acknowledge how wrong they were and make it clear that lessons have been learned and that they would follow a very different approach” toward Israel should not be able to serve in any future Democratic administration.

Van Hollen also defended Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, the Democratic nominee who has drawn controversy for his Nazi tattoo, far-left views and numerous scandals and controversies, as “the candidate in that race who is fighting for working people” and “somebody who’s going to shape things up and actually respond to the pocketbook issues of the people of Maine.”

The long love affair between Israelis and President Donald Trump, on the rocks over the last few weeks as the U.S. and Iran hammered out an end to the war, appears to be over, with humiliations mounting for Jerusalem. “I call all the shots,” not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said earlier this month. More recently, the Israeli leader’s bombing campaign in Beirut was “vicious,” Trump said. And perhaps most humiliating of all, Trump suggested that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa could better take care of Hezbollah than the IDF.

The Israeli public — the spurned lover who once hailed the U.S. president with billboards hung in the center of Tel Aviv reading “Thank you God & Donald Trump” — is not taking it well. Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog told JI, “President Trump, who has been a hero to many Israelis, is now openly criticized from within the Israeli government, including Netanyahu’s close circle.”

And this criticism is not only expressed behind closed doors. Channel 14, the popular right-wing outlet that promotes Netanyahu, has been criticizing Trump resolutely, with some of its anchors publicly cursing Vice President JD Vance and the president’s close advisors, White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

It was not always this way. For most of the time since Trump reentered the White House in January 2025, he has been popular in Israel, with polls consistently showing high ratings for the American president. 

For Israelis, Trump is the one who brokered the hostage-release agreement with Hamas; Trump is the one who made the strikes in Iran and the bombing of the nuclear enrichment facilities in Fordow and Natanz a reality; and Trump is the one who established the Abraham Accords and is willing to expand them, giving Israelis the chance to sunbathe in the UAE, and perhaps in other countries in the Gulf in the near future. And although some won’t admit it, many Israelis also like his tendency to speak very bluntly, and crudely: a president born in Queens, full of Israeli chutzpah.

In recent weeks, the attitude toward Trump among the Israeli public, and the Israeli leadership, has radically and rapidly changed. But this process began even before the signing of the memorandum of understanding with Iran. Over the past few months, time and again, Netanyahu has tried to convince Trump to resume strikes on Iran, only to be rejected. A source familiar with the discourse between the two leaders described to JI a situation that has played out repeatedly since April: the Israeli prime minister explains why only the military option is the correct approach to Iran, while Trump listens but prefers the diplomatic path. 

And then Trump, in his typical fashion, says that Netanyahu will do whatever the U.S. president tells him to do — which has some degree of truth — but is not a good look for a prime minister seeking reelection. Trump has repeatedly criticized Israeli policy in Lebanon and publicly reprimanded Netanyahu for not being responsible enough. When the U.S. president once again floated the possibility that al-Sharaa should handle Hezbollah, which has fired thousands of rockets and drones toward Israel and most recently killed four Israeli soldiers overnight Thursday, the criticism in Israel escalated.

Trump had previously suggested that the Syrians take on Hezbollah, as reported by Kann earlier this week, during an official meeting between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors in April, though those in attendance were unenthusiastic about the idea. To understand the Israeli approach toward Trump’s suggestion, one can look at what the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Likud MK Boaz Bismuth, posted on X: “President Trump, we don’t trust the terrorist Jolani, we have Golani,” referencing a well-known IDF combat infantry brigade.

The opinion within the Trump administration has been made clear. “Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic  to the nation of Israel at this moment and time,” Vance told reporters on Thursday. “If I was in the Cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have left in the entire world,” he said. “The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump. And anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the U.S. needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

Yet now, after the agreement has been published, the criticism remains unchanged. An Israeli official told JI that the agreement raises several troubling signs, among them: the uncertainty over whether all enriched uranium will be removed from Iran, or only the high-level uranium; under the terms of the agreement, Iran, it appears, will be allowed to enrich uranium at a low level on its soil, meaning it can continue to operate centrifuges; and the issue of oversight is not explained.

“The second shocking thing here is the betrayal of the Iranian people. The second clause in the MOU agreement states that neither country will interfere in the internal affairs of the other. This means the Iranians can execute protesters, and nothing will be done to them,” the Israeli official said. “This entire war started because Trump said that ‘help is on the way,’ and that we would not allow tens of thousands of protesters to be shot and slaughtered. Beyond the concern that Iran will remain a nuclear threshold state, there is also a moral problem here.”

Avner Vilan, a former senior security official and Iran expert, also raised concerns about the agreement. “Iran is receiving a great deal of relief right now, but there is still a long way to go to reach an agreement in the nuclear field. This is an agreement that gives the murderous terror regime in Iran infinite immunity and incentives, allowing it to survive almost indefinitely, while recognizing the strategic significance of Hormuz,” he told JI. 

Vilan also referred to the statements made by Trump in recent days that sparked concern within the Israeli defense establishment. Trump has legitimized Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, and this, as Vilan points out, despite the fact that Israel defined this threat as an existential threat almost on par with the nuclear one. “This is more disturbing than the state of relations between Trump and Netanyahu, and of course, it doesn’t help that the president calls the State of Israel a ‘very small partner.’ At the beginning of the war, we were a ‘Model Ally.’ Not a small partner,” Vilan notes. “Israel’s point of strength for years was that the way to D.C. goes through Jerusalem. Today, that is no longer the case at all.”

“Israelis expected that the amazing military achievements the U.S. and Israel scored together would be translated into a strong, enduring diplomatic outcome focused on the nuclear issue,” says former Ambassador Herzog. “Instead, the U.S. opted out of the war with a general MOU that focuses on the Strait of Hormuz and the global economy, in return for releasing generous funds to Iran and postponing the core nuclear negotiations. There is little reason to believe that the Iranian regime will now agree to give up the nuclear option or change its orientation, especially as the U.S. military option is taken off the table.”

What looked like a year of celebrating blue, white and red cooperation has been fading more and more in recent weeks. The disappointment among senior Israeli officials is likely intensifying, due in part to the widespread praise that Trump has long received in Israel. It wasn’t for nothing that Trump said last month that he could run in the upcoming elections for prime minister in Israel and win. Even if he were on the ballot, with the thrill now gone, he wouldn’t stand a chance.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro criticized Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday, arguing that Vance’s support for the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran suggested that he was not serving President Donald Trump well. 

Shapiro made the comments, which mark his most direct criticism to date of Vance’s approach to Iran, to Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum”while offering a harsh assessment of the MOU in the hours after the Trump administration released the text of the agreement. He described the deal as “a disaster” and called out the vice president for his role in leading this particular diplomatic effort.

“The president deciding to go into Iran and to hit nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer and then to go after Iran’s ballistic missile facilities and nuclear facilities, army, navy and air force in this current operation was the signal act of political bravery perhaps of my lifetime,” Shapiro said. 

“With that said, this MOU appears to be, just from the text, a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning,” he continued. “In my opinion, the vice president of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president.”

On his latest podcast episode on Wednesday, Shapiro praised Vance for his appearance on ABC’s “The View” and described him as an “undeniably talented politician,” though he questioned Vance’s decision to appear on Megyn Kelly’s show “to make overtures to Tucker Carlson.”

“Megyn Kelly is a person who has said that the Israelis manipulated the administration into war, who has laughed along to the proposition that the Republican Party is a bunch of Israel-loving pedophiles,” Shapiro said. “This is where the vice president chose to retail the argument.”

Shapiro also disputed Vance’s assertion to Kelly that opponents of the MOU were “promoting endless conflict” in the region. “They don’t have an alternative. If your alternative is just to drop bombs without any clear goal or any clear American interest implicated, then you’re not making wise decisions on behalf of the American people,” Vance said.

“An entire field of strawmen is now burning because this is what we colloquially call a lie. This is a lie,” Shapiro said. “An endless conflict would be, say, a 47-year conflict with an intransigent radical Islamist enemy that wants to destroy America.”

“Some of us have been calling for the president to end this war quickly, like from the beginning,” he continued. “I’ve been saying for literally months that instead of signing onto a useless ceasefire, that we ought to take or bomb Kharg Island, open the Straits with operations like Project Freedom, which the president announced and then unannounced, and then leave overwatch to our allies like Israel and the UAE. That is not an endless war.”

Shapiro went on to detail his objections to the MOU itself in his Fox appearance, arguing that the text of the deal did not address several major sticking points that led to the U.S. launching the war in the first place.

“There were effectively five goals that were set by the administration at the beginning. One was ending the nuclear program, not just nuclear weapons, no nuclear enrichment, zero enrichment. That is not in the deal. Ballistic missiles ended, that is not in the deal,” Shapiro said. “Then you have the support of terrorism, that is not part of the deal, anything that looks like an attempt to end terrorism.” 

“A permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz toll free, not only is that not in the deal, the deal appears to have a provision allowing Iran and Oman to attempt to toll the Straits after 60 days,” he added. “Then finally, the idea that Iran would receive some sort of sanctions relief after all of those things happened. We are already seeing, from day one, relief in their ability to ship oil out of Iran.”

Shapiro expressed bewilderment at Trump’s comments earlier Wednesday suggesting that the U.S. would not forbid Iran from possessing ballistic missiles and downplaying the threat of the regime continuing to have those weapons — despite it being a key goal in entering the conflict. He also responded to Trump’s criticism of Israel’s conduct in its war against Hezbollah, defending the Israelis and pointing to previous statements by the president in support of Israel’s war aims. 

“The president today suggested that ballistic missiles should actually continue to be held by the Iranians because the Saudis, our allies, also hold ballistic missiles,” Shapiro said. “The fact is that the president himself has suggested that Israel has a right to defend itself. Ambassador [Mike] Huckabee, our ambassador to Israel, has said that Israel has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It’s not the government of Lebanon, and in fact is opposed to the government of Lebanon. They’ve been firing ordnance over the border at Israel for literally years at this point.”

“The idea that Israel should be held back from defending itself against a terror group that is a proxy army of Iran, because we have some sort of deal over the Strait of Hormuz, is a massive tactical blunder that gives Iran one of the things that Iran actually wants, which is to reconstitute its forward operating base in Lebanon,” he continued. “Anything that allows them to reconstitute their terror army would be a huge regional mistake.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered a similar take on Wednesday, arguing that Trump was given “some very poor advice on this deal” while declining to go after the vice president by name.

“Giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. Setting up Iran to be in charge of the Strait of Hormuz in perpetuity, and to charge tolls is not in America’s interest, in my view. The Ayatollah should not reap a single penny from the free transit of the seas,” Cruz told reporters. “I think the president, unfortunately, is receiving bad advice once again.”

Asked if he believes the president should not sign the MOU and abandon peace talks, the Texas senator replied: “That’s a decision he’s going to have to make.”

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son and one of Vance’s closest allies outside the White House, went on to attack Cruz on social media for his criticisms of the agreement.

Trump Jr. accused Cruz of “lying thru [sic] his teeth about the deal,” claiming in a post on X that the U.S. is “not giving them [Iran] a cent and he [Cruz] knows that.” He then alleged Cruz was “using fake news about the peace deal to undermine” the president, which he described as “the opposite of MAGA.”

According to the text of the MOU released on Wednesday, however, the U.S. “undertakes to develop a definitive, mutually agreed reconstruction and economic development plan for the Islamic Republic of Iran valued at a minimum of $300 billion (USD).”

The deal also includes language terminating “all sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran — including UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. primary and secondary sanctions.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani drew criticism on Thursday from several prominent Jewish New Yorkers for releasing a social media video on rent regulation hearings that prominently featured a public employee sporting a keffiyeh, a checkered scarf associated with the Palestinian cause.

The video, which runs just over one minute long and doesn’t touch on Middle East issues, promotes a new door-to-door outreach campaign to encourage participation in upcoming meetings of the Rent Guidelines Board. 

In it, one of staffers featured in the video, Mohamed Alharbi — deputy borough director of the newly established Mayor’s Office of Mass Engagement — wears a keffiyeh over his shoulders, visible for all but a few moments of the clip.

“Shameful video. The anti-Zionist messaging isn’t subtle — it fuels a broader climate that emboldens antisemitism,” wrote Todd Richman, a veteran Democratic Party operative and co-founder of Democratic Majority for Israel, highlighting the recent spike in hate crimes targeting Jewish New Yorkers. “Don’t ignore the pattern. This rhetoric has real consequences. The Mayor should take this down immediately.” 

Benny Polatseck, who ran the creative communications team for former Mayor Eric Adams, also raised concerns.

“The keffiyeh wasn’t a slip. It was the point. And it’s disgraceful,” Polatseck asserted. “We would never have produced a video targeting a community in our city.”

Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager and major political donor in New York, questioned the entire initiative.

“Imagine if some guy wearing a terror Schmatta comes to your home unannounced and knocks on your door asking you a bunch of personal questions and demanding you appear at a government struggle session,” he tweeted, using a Yiddish word for rag.

The black-and-white patterned keffiyeh was the invention of English-born Lt. Gen. John Glubb, leader of the Arab Legion that seized the West Bank in 1948. Palestinian Liberation Organization head Yasser Arafat and terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled later popularized the garment as a political symbol in the 1970s.

The Mamdani administration did not respond to questions about the decision to feature a public servant displaying a political symbol in a publicly financed video.

Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of Politico’s parent company, Axel Springer, doubled down in defense of the German publishing giant’s corporate values while addressing criticism from Politico’s editorial staff on Monday, suggesting to journalists that if they do not feel fully comfortable with a mission statement that includes support for Israel’s right to exist and other principles known as “the essentials,” they should find work elsewhere, according to audio of the discussion obtained by Jewish Insider.

“Nobody should work for Axel Springer despite the essentials or in disagreement with one of the essentials,” Döpfner said on a 40-minute call that also included feedback from Politico executives who expressed alignment with the CEO. “If the essentials are not attractive, if the essentials are not a magnet, if the essentials are not a reason why to work for this company, I can only recommend to work for other companies.”

“There are many options where values do not play such a role — or where other values play a role,” he added, citing NGOs, “financial investors” and “other publishers.”

His comments received no pushback and even some tacit backing from Politico leaders who participated in the meeting, including Jonathan Greenberger, the outlet’s incoming editor-in-chief who takes the helm on Friday; John Harris, the company’s founder and outgoing editor-in-chief; and Goli Sheikholeslami, its CEO.

The meeting came in response to a letter sent by Politico staffers to Greenberger on Friday, accusing Döpfner of using the outlet “to promote his political agenda” and raising concerns that two opinion pieces he wrote for the publication “risk undermining” its “reputation as an impartial news source.” 

The letter referred, among other things, to opinion articles in which Döpfner exhorted Europe to stand with the United States and Israel in their war with Iran and said that European aid to Palestinians helped fund terrorists, while arguing that the continent was “on the wrong side of history” in pausing assistance to Israel. The letter and subsequent conversation was first reported by Semafor on Monday, which characterized the meeting as company leadership being receptive to staffers’ concerns. 

In his remarks to Politico staffers, Döpfner said he found elements of the letter “a bit disturbing,” and vowed to “write more in the future, not less,” for the widely read Beltway news site, insisting his personal views do not reflect or influence the outlet’s editorial line.

“The thing that honestly irritated me most,” he explained on the call, taking issue with one of the letter’s complaints, “is that you said in the latest piece, ‘he refers to Iran as the aggressor that was systematically pursuing nuclear weapons,’ and you think that is misleading and irresponsible to publish that without clarification, and that in our style book, we refer to Iranians’ retaliation.”

Such a characterization, he countered, may in fact have been too understated to convey his argument in his March opinion piece.

“If you’re saying that one should not say that the Iranian leadership, the mullahs, are aggressors, you may be right,” Döpfner said. “The wording is more a euphemism. We should rather say they’re terrorists, or they are mass murderers. That would be more appropriate, given the kind of spread of terrorism with Iranian proxies from Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi and other terrorist organizations. I think to position that as an aggressor is a mild version of what it is.”

He added that the letter had led him to suspect that “we may have very fundamental disagreement on the perception of fundamental values of democratic and open society models, but perhaps that then opens the room for discussion.”

If the Green Party in England is “saying Zionism is racism,” he continued, “I just want to make it very clear that we think Zionism is, and that is the official definition, Israel’s right of self-determination and of its right to exist as a safe haven for Jews” who have “almost been extinct during the Holocaust.”

“If that is something that somebody wants to question, then we are really reaching the very fundamental principles of our values,” Döpfner reiterated to the staff. “And that then may lead simply to the decision that, because we are very transparent about it, it is then an individual decision whether Axel Springer and somebody who has so fundamentally different beliefs is really a good fit.”

Later in the discussion, Döpfner fielded a question from a reporter who said that the description of Iran as an aggressor seeking nuclear weapons “didn’t meet the standards we’re expected to adhere to in our own reporting,” arguing that if Politico journalists were to use such language in their own news stories then “we would be asked to asked to back it up.”

Döpfner stressed that he did not feel it was necessary to muster evidence to support a point he viewed as self-evident. “I think you have to qualify or prove arguments or points if they are new or if they are debatable,” he said. “But for me at least, these two facts — that the Iranians are working on the nuclear bomb and that they are aggressors for decades — are so obvious, so proven for many times, they are almost — it’s like saying America is the biggest democracy in the world.”

“I don’t have to prove that,” he said. “That was my point. But also that is a room for debate. Why not?”

His remarks on the call underscored ongoing editorial frictions between Axel Springer and its flagship U.S. news property, which it acquired in 2021 for more than $1 billion amid an aggressive foray into international markets. While Politico’s staffers are not contractually required to uphold the essential values that have long been central to Axel Springer’s mission, Politico has appeared to chafe against such principles, particularly on supporting Israel’s right to exist, which its parent company describes as “non-negotiable” on its website.

“Nobody has to sign the essentials. The signing is a symbolic act. We don’t need that,” Döpfner said in the meeting. “More important is that employees of Axel Springer feel attracted [to] these very fundamental values.”

Some Politico staffers had reportedly expressed suspicion of Axel Springer’s values shortly after the outlet had come under its new ownership five years ago — presaging recent concerns voiced by anti-Israel activists after Axel Springer acquired The Daily Telegraph.

In recent weeks, Politico has drawn criticism for publishing a sympathetic profile about Francesca Albanese, the United Nation’s special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, a fierce critic of Israel who has used antisemitic tropes. The journalist who wrote the story also came under scrutiny after now-deleted posts about the “Jewish lobby” had surfaced.

The outlet also provoked controversy last month over its decision to publish a political cartoon that invoked several antisemitic tropes while criticizing the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. It depicted President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers wearing blood-stained Jewish prayer shawls while seated in a waterfall-bound boat with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose nose was elongated. It also featured a blood-covered bag of money, among other stereotypes suggesting that the United States had been duped into joining Israel in attacking Iran by Jewish political and financial interests, a classic antisemitic trope. 

The cartoon was removed amid backlash, replaced by an editor’s note that said it did not meet Politico’s editorial standards.

Döpfner, who received the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor last October and has frequently warned about rising antisemitism in the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks, has not publicly weighed in on such issues at Politico. 

Politico did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

“We appreciate internal discussions like this, because they help to clarify our principles on editorial independence and our non-negotiable values, which we call the Essentials,” a spokesperson for Axel Springer said in a statement to JI.

During the call on Monday, Döpfner broadly emphasized that the essentials represent “societal values” that define the “intellectual constitution of the company.” He said the support for Israel that is enshrined in its company-wide values “does not mean that you do not criticize the Israeli government, which happens every day.”

“But our values are clear,” Döpfner explained. “They are very transparent, transparent for our readers, transparent for our employees, and only those who feel very much attracted by the values should work for us.”

For his part, Greenberger, who was named editor-in-chief last month, defended what he described as Döpfner’s commitment to Politico’s editorial independence in comments at the beginning of the call. “He’s not going to tell me what to do,” he said of the CEO. “He’s a resource, and I appreciate that.” 

Greenberger also endorsed the essentials as “our corporate values” that can “coexist” with Politico’s reporting. Referring to Axel Springer’s eponymous founder, an anti-communist and pro-Israel advocate who died in 1985, he said the company was created “in the rubble of World War II” and that its values reflect that history, including “support for the Allied partnership that defeated Nazism and Israel’s role as a safe haven for many of the people the Nazis tried but failed to exterminate.”

Such values “do not bar us from reporting critically about Israel or about NATO or about free trade,” Greenberger added. “In fact, they require critical coverage of it.”

“A lot of things are going to change,” Greenberger said during the meeting. “I hope that that’s exciting to you. I hope you want to join me in helping our journalism travel further and faster, in harnessing this disruption out there in the world to our benefit. 

“But I know that some of you may say, as you take stock. that that doesn’t sit right, and that it doesn’t feel like it is something that will make you happy,” he continued. “What I say behind closed doors I’ll say to all of you right now: I’m a very firm believer that we do our best work where we are happy, where we feel fulfilled, where we feel aligned with the organization that we work for.”

He encouraged staffers on the call to “take stock at this moment and ask” themselves whether they are as “excited about this next chapter” as he is. “I hope the answer is yes.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) dismissed criticism of Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner’s scandals on Wednesday, after calling him “my kind of man” at his rally in Maine on Saturday.

“You care about character,” CNBC host Sara Eisen said to Warren. “This is a guy that had a chest tattoo with a Nazi symbol — OK, he apologized for it. It’s a guy that reportedly wrote that people concerned about rape should take some responsibility for themselves and not get so effed up that they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to. He praised military tactics used by Hamas, reportedly, in comments online when they were murdering Israeli soldiers. So I’m just curious why you think he’s ‘your kind of man’?”

Warren responded, “So, as you rightly point out, he has apologized. He’s out meeting with the people of Maine every single day so they can evaluate not who Graham Platner was but who Graham Platner is today.” She went on to say her comment was in reference to her experience reading an interview of Platner’s where he condemned the lack of consequences for bankers during the 2008 financial crisis.

Eisen said, “OK, well, ‘I dig it,’ next to a video of a bunch of terrorists killing five soldiers?” referring to a Jewish Insider report unearthing Platner’s 2014 Reddit comments. “I don’t know, I mean, you guys want to be the party of inclusivity, right?” 

“I want to be the party that stands up for hardworking people,” Warren answered. “I want to be the party that is transformative of an economy that right now is hip deep in corruption … and that’s what Graham Platner wants to do and I’m there to stand with him and to help in that fight.”

The campaign website home page for Michael Blake, a progressive challenger to Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) who has made his criticism of Israel a centerpiece of his campaign, features a picture of Blake in Israel.

Blake was once a strong supporter of the Jewish state, and traveled there with the AIPAC-backed American Israel Education Foundation and with the New York Jewish Community Relations Council.

In the photo, part of a gallery on the campaign home page, Blake poses, holding a Bible, in front of signage for the White Synagogue, one of the oldest synagogues in Israel located in the ancient village of Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee. 

Capernaum holds particular significance for Christians given that it is thought to be where Jesus lived and taught, and the home of Saint Peter.

Blake’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing criticism from some prominent Michigan Democrats — including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), who is running against him in the Democratic primary — for his decision to host campaign rallies with Hasan Piker, the far-left political streamer with a history of antisemitic remarks. 

“That’s the exact opposite of someone I’d be campaigning with,” Stevens told Jewish Insider on Wednesday. “We have to be serious here about who’s going to be the best general election candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan to beat [Republican] Mike Rogers, and someone who’s campaigning with someone like that is not going to win in Michigan.” 

El-Sayed will host two rallies with Piker and Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University on April 7. 

Piker has millions of followers on the streaming platform Twitch. He has said that “Hamas is a thousand times better” than Israel, and has described Orthodox Jews as “inbred.” He has also praised terrorists and said America deserved 9/11. 

Stevens said that by associating with Piker, El-Sayed is “choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric.”

Slotkin told JI that she is not familiar with much of Piker’s language but that what she knows of his rhetoric raises concerns for her.

“Any equating of all Jews or American Jews with Israel and the Israeli government is a problem right off the bat, and then it sounds like, from there, a cascading set of antisemitic tropes and just the kind of rhetoric that is — I want to read for myself, but sounds deeply antisemitic, consistently, and therefore not someone that should be helping anybody out in the Michigan political environment,” said Slotkin. 

The announcement of Piker’s upcoming campaign visits to Michigan comes two weeks after an attempted terrorist attack at Temple Israel, a Reform synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Mich. 

A new poll conducted by the campaign of Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, the third major Democrat running alongside Stevens and Piker, shows McMorrow leading the race with 30%. El-Sayed is behind her at 25%, and Stevens follows at 23%, with 21% undecided. Other polling ahead of the August primary has shown Stevens with a small lead. 

A New York City councilmember known for her fervent criticism of Israel faced harsh questioning at a recent gathering of the Democratic Socialists of America — because she had also spoken out against Hamas, as well as supporters of the terrorist organization who demonstrated outside New York synagogues.

The comments came during Councilmember Shahana Hanif’s interview earlier this month with the NYC-DSA Socialists in Office committee. Hanif, a DSA member who long lambasted Israel prior to facing a centrist challenger last year, appeared before the group in order to receive formal endorsement and volunteer support from the organization in the future.

But during the interview process, held both in-person and over Zoom, Hanif faced questioning for her condemnation of Hamas for its Oct. 7, 2023, attacks — which came belatedly in April 2024 — and her denouncement of protesters who chanted, “We support Hamas” outside a Queens synagogue in January, according to a recording obtained by Jewish Insider.

“Something that concerned me is the comparison of protesters who chanted support of Hamas to neo-Nazi protests, equating them both as antisemitism. Many of us, with 60% of Gen Z supporting Hamas against Israel, many of us are realizing now that we’ve been lied to all our lives,” one participant in the interview said to Hanif. “We do so under fear knowing that the politicians that represent us are supporting a genocide, as well as supporting political repression against us.
So will you fight back against that effort to repress us, or will you take part in it yourself?”

Hanif asked the questioner to clarify her query.

“When we are accused of antisemitism for supporting the Palestinian resistance, many leftist politicians equate that to the antisemitism of neo-Nazis and I feel that is extremely dangerous,” the young woman said.

In response, Shanif did not directly engage with the speaker’s comments on Hamas but appeared to agree that too many protesters had been identified as antisemitic.

“The propaganda on antisemitism and what is antisemitism has certainly hurt our city in many, many ways,” the Brooklyn Democrat said. “I’m only looking forward to making sure to call out the bullshit where there is. And listen, I’m not perfect on messaging. This takes not only practice, but it also takes learning.”

Hanif further indicated that if admitted to the Socialists in Office group, which currently includes only two of the Council’s 51 members, they could collectively coordinate to push back on allegations of antisemitism.

“I think it’s a very important question, and I think having this cohort of city SIOs to work with will provide a healthy scholarship on issues pertaining to what is antisemitism, or calling out what is not antisemitism that is being called antisemitic,” Hanif continued.

Hanif’s office did not answer questions seeking clarity on her post-election stance toward Hamas. In a statement to JI, NYC-DSA stressed that all dues-paying members had access to the forum and that the group did not vet questions in advance. It also maintained it has criticized the conduct of both Israel and Hamas, even though it promoted protests against the Jewish state just one day after the Oct. 7 attacks.

“Individual participants and members do not reflect the positions of the organization,” said NYC-DSA Vice Chair Grace Mausser. “We have long been on the record in condemning all war crimes and massacres.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing criticism from Democratic leaders over his delayed and muted response to last week’s pro-Hamas protest in Queens that caused nearby schools and a synagogue to close early in anticipation of the demonstration, where dozens of masked protesters chanted “We support Hamas” near the synagogue. 

Democratic elected officials across New York — including left-wing politicians hostile to Israel, like Mamdani ally and former City Comptroller Brad Lander — were quick to release statements condemning the support for Hamas that was on display at the demonstration, which was organized by the group Palestinian Assembly for Liberation, [PAL]-Awda, to protest an event held by CapitIL, a Jerusalem-based real estate agency. 

The event was held at the Modern Orthodox synagogue Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills. 

A flyer promoting the protest, which took place on a residential street about half a block from the synagogue, called the meeting an “illegal event” promoting “blatant land theft and dispossession.” Keffiyeh-clad demonstrators also chanted “There is only one solution, intifada revolution,” “Globalize the intifada,” and “Death to the IDF” for more than two hours while banging on drums. 

“Let’s be crystal clear: this is vile antisemitism,” Lander, who is running to unseat Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) as a Mamdani-endorsed challenger in New York’s 10th Congressional District, said on Friday morning. “This should not have to be said: you can oppose land sales in the West Bank, without supporting terrorism & the mass murder of Jews.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul, who endorsed Mamdani in the mayoral election, also weighed in on Friday morning, saying, “Hamas is a terrorist organization that calls for the genocide of Jews. No matter your political beliefs, this type of rhetoric is disgusting, it’s dangerous, and it has no place in New York,”  

New York Attorney General Letitia James said Friday midday, “Hamas is a terrorist organization. We do not support terrorists. Period.”

Other New York Democratic leaders who condemned the protest quickly and directly on Thursday and Friday included New York City Comptroller Mark Levine, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Reps. Grace Meng and Ritchie Torres. 

But the newly inaugurated mayor remained silent Thursday night and much of the following day regarding the demonstration, which marked his first major test in protecting the city’s Jewish community. 

His spokesperson did not respond to multiple inquiries from Jewish Insider on Thursday, including one asking whether the mayor’s team had discouraged demonstrators from protesting and another, immediately after the event, asking if he condemned any of the slogans chanted. 

Mamdani broke his silence late in the afternoon on Friday when he was asked about the protesters’ pro-Hamas chant by Politico reporter Jason Beeferman while leaving a campaign event in Brooklyn for Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed candidate Claire Valdez, who is running for a Brooklyn-Queens congressional seat held by Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) 

“That language is wrong,” Mamdani replied while walking to a car after the event. “I think that language has no place in New York City.”

Mamdani later followed up with an additional statement just after Shabbat started in New York: “As I made clear, the rhetoric and displays that we saw and heard in Kew Gardens Hills last night are wrong and have no place in our city,” he said. “My team is in close touch with the NYPD regarding last night’s protest and counterprotest. We will continue to ensure New Yorkers’ safety entering and exiting houses of worship as well as the constitutional right to protest.”

On Saturday, when asked at a press conference why he didn’t “condemn both sides,” Mamdani answered, “I absolutely have an opposition to the sale of land in the West Bank. It’s a violation of international law and that comes from my belief in the importance of following international law.”  

“It’s been a distressing few months for Jews everywhere. I appreciated the mayor’s statement,” Democratic strategist Chris Coffey told JI. “Could it have come earlier? Sure. But being mayor in the first week is pure pandemonium and chaos. The important part is that he got it right.” 

But Mamdani’s eventual response was met with continued concern from Jewish leaders over its delay and neglect to specifically condemn Hamas. In a sign of the far-left character of his political base, he also received criticism from DSA-aligned allies in his own camp for criticizing the protest. 

“It’s a step up from his statement [after the Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel], which failed to even mention Hamas. Still, it’s concerning that it takes the mayor of the city with the largest population of Jews outside of Israel nearly 24 hours to condemn blatant antisemitism when every other major elected in New York found the time,” Democratic state Assemblymember Sam Berger, who represents the district where the protest took place, told JI on Sunday. 

Another Democratic Queens assemblymember, Nily Rozic, told JI, “It shouldn’t take the mayor [nearly] 24 hours to condemn an antisemitic protest layered in antisemitism, let alone one that openly supports terror organizations.” 

Rozic expressed dismay over the timing of the statement after Shabbat.  

“If the mayor were genuine in his concern over Jewish safety he would have acted with urgency and not waited so long, when most of those impacted wouldn’t see his statement until long after,” she told JI.  

“I am a vocal & passionate support[er] of Mamdani’s,” Adam Carlson, founding partner of the polling group Zenith Polls, wrote on X. “But I’ve waited patiently all day for him to forcefully condemn Hamas — watching dozens of other city & state electeds do so — and am still waiting. This is not only hurtful to me, but it’s bad politics & distracts from his agenda.”

New York magazine writer David Freedlander posted screenshots on X of texts sent to him on Friday afternoon from two city political operatives, both “broadly supportive of Mamdani.” 

The messages were identical: “Zohran is completely blowing this pro-Hamas protest thing.”

Newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing criticism for repealing executive orders issued by former Mayor Eric Adams aimed at tackling antisemitism, including implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism and an anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions order.

The revocation of those orders came as part of a blanket repeal of all of Adams’ executive orders following his September 2024 indictment on federal corruption charges, which Mamdani said “was a date that marked a moment when many New Yorkers decided politics held nothing for them.”

In a joint statement, the UJA-Federation of New York, Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, American Jewish Committee of New York, Anti-Defamation League of New York/New Jersey, Agudath Israel of America, the New York Board of Rabbis and the Orthodox Union said that the Jewish community “will be looking for clear and sustained leadership that demonstrates a serious commitment to confronting antisemitism and ensures that the powers of the mayor’s office are used to promote safety and unity, not to advance divisive efforts such as BDS.

“Singling Israel out for sanction is not the way to make Jewish New Yorkers feel included and safe, and will undermine any words to that effect,” the statement continued.

William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said that the repeal of the executive orders “is a troubling indicator of the direction in which [Mamdani] is leading the city, just one day at the helm.”

“Repealing [the IHRA definition] diminishes New York City’s ability to recognize and respond to antisemitism at a time when incidents continue to rise,” Daroff said in a statement. “New York City should lead with moral clarity and resolve in confronting antisemitism. This decision points in the opposite direction.”

The Anti-Defamation League of New York and New Jersey said it is “deeply troubled that on his first day in office Mayor Mamdani weakened protections to fight antisemitism by revoking executive orders adopting the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and providing safeguards against Israel-related discrimination in city procurement and pension decision-making.”

“While the continuation of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism (MOCA) is welcome and important, revoking these executive orders removes key tools for addressing antisemitism, including BDS-driven efforts that seek to demonize, delegitimize, and isolate the world’s only Jewish state,” the ADL continued.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said that the Department of Justice “will be extremely vigilant … as to ANY AND ALL violations of religious liberties in NYC. We will investigate, sue, and indict as needed.”

New York State Assemblymember Sam Berger, a Democrat, said, “I find it highly concerning that on day one, under the cover of a sweeping EO, @NYCMayor repealed the IHRA definition from NYC law. Removing how a majority of Jewish New Yorkers define hatred towards us doesn’t exactly build trust.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said on X that the repeal shows Mamdani’s “true face.”

“This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire,” the statement continued.

Israeli Ambassador Ofir Akuns, the consul general of Israel in New York, called Mamdani’s moves “dangerous” and said they “pose an immediate threat to the safety of Jewish communities in New York City and could lead to an increase in violent antisemitic attacks throughout the city.”

Responding to a story about the executive order, Department of Justice senior counsel Leo Terrell said, “To Jewish Americans who voted for Mamdani! SHAME ON YOU!”

New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, a Republican, called for federal action to protect Jewish institutions in response to the repeal of another Adams executive order placing additional restrictions on protest outside of religious institutions.

“We need to enforce federal law that’s already in place here because the pro-Hamas antisemites emboldened by [Mamdani] are coming,” Vernikov said on X, tagging Dhillon and Terrell.

Mamdani issued a new executive order largely mirroring Adams’ order on the same issue.

He also announced on Thursday that he would keep the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, created by Adams, in operation, stating that he takes the issue “very seriously.”

Both of those moves were praised in the joint statement from the New York Jewish organizations.

His office, however, deleted multiple posts from the mayoral X account about a recent report on antisemitism in the city issued by that office under Adams, which also elicited criticism. Mamdani has not said what the office’s work going forward will entail or who will staff it.

Mark Goldfeder, the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, said on X that it is “[h]ard to overstate how disturbing it is that one of the first acts of the new @NYCMayor was to delete official tweets and EO’s addressing the protection of Jewish New Yorkers,” a sentiment echoed in a letter he sent to Mamdani.

Adams, who attended Mamdani’s inauguration, also repeatedly criticized the new mayor.

“[Mamdani] promised a New Era and unity today. This isn’t new. And it isn’t unity,” Adams said on X, adding later, “To my knowledge, neither [former New York mayors Michael] Bloomberg, [Bill] de Blasio, nor Adams scrubbed antisemitism tweets on day one. I’ve been clear: I will be vocal in defending our Jewish brothers and sisters, just as they stood up for African Americans during the civil rights era.”

Democratic lawmakers who have been stridently critical of Israel and its operations in Gaza offered tepid support for the ceasefire and hostage-release deal, the first phase of which was signed on Thursday, while reiterating their criticisms of Israel and the U.S.’ support for the Jewish state. Few offered any words of support for the Israeli hostages who have been held by Hamas for over two years. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who has led a series of efforts to block arms transfers to Israel, didn’t explicitly praise the deal negotiated by President Donald Trump, but said he hopes the deal would lead to the end of a “horrific war.” He made no mention of the Israeli hostages set to be released, but asserted one-tenth of the Gazan population was killed or injured during the war. 

“As of today something like 10% of the Palestinian people in Gaza have been killed or wounded, mostly women, children and the elderly. The United States has put tens of billions of dollars into an effort which has led to mass destruction,” Sanders told Jewish Insider. “So I hope — and I’m sure everybody else does — that this horrific war can end as soon as possible.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said on X that the ceasefire is a “hopeful step” but quickly pivoted to expressing unvarnished opposition to Israel. She also made no mention of the Israeli hostages expected to be freed from their Hamas captors.

“For the sake of humanity, let’s hope this will be a lasting and permanent ceasefire,” Omar said. “While this is a hopeful step, we must demand accountability for every war crime committed during this genocide and continue to call for an end to the occupation.”

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL), the lead sponsor of legislation that aims to place strict conditions on critical arms sales to Israel, said on X she plans to continue to pursue that legislation.

“Immediately after October 7, I called for a ceasefire and for a path that honors our shared humanity. It is unfortunate that it took this long. However, I am hopeful that today’s ceasefire agreement will bring the hostages and prisoners home and end the bombing and starvation of the Palestinian people,” Ramirez said. “We must save Palestinian lives and pursue an end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s war crimes, atrocities, and genocide.  I will continue to work to Block the Bombs, as we pursue a future of self-determination for the Palestinian people and a just and lasting peace for all residents of the region.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), tamping down on enthusiasm for the deal, reposted an X post suggesting that Israel may violate the deal.

“There is certainly some hope that the Gaza deal will hold but it’s important to remember that the last ceasefire agreement collapsed in March before ever reaching phase 2 when Israel reimposed a blockade on Gaza and bombings on the strip resumed,” the post, from an NBC News correspondent, reads.

Other prominent critics, particularly on the far-left, have remained unusually mum about the deal.

Squad members Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) and Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) did not respond to requests for comment and did not comment publicly.

Some other lawmakers who have been vocally critical of Israel’s operations in Gaza offered more fulsome praise for the deal.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said in a statement that the deal is “the first hopeful moment in a long time,” noting both the release of hostages and the surge of aid into Gaza. He credited U.S. pressure on Israel, however, rather than the reported increased pressure from Qatar, Turkey and Egypt on Hamas, for the breakthrough.

“Pressure from the U.S. and others has always been necessary to reach this moment — something that could have been achieved much earlier and prevented the staggering loss of civilian life, starvation, and devastation in Gaza,” Van Hollen said. “U.S. leadership will be essential to enforce this plan and convert this moment into real progress toward lasting peace — which can only be achieved by sidelining the extremists on all sides and committing to security, dignity, human rights, and justice for all.” 

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who led an effort calling for the U.S. to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, also praised the deal and led with the return of the Israeli hostages in his comments.

“It’s obviously very welcome news. Finally, the hostages are going to come home. The bombing hopefully is going to stop. Israel is going to withdraw,” Khanna said on Fox Business. “Everything I have read seems that this is a welcome development. And I’m really glad that after two years of a war, this seems to be finally coming to a resolution.”

“Now, we need to work for 2 states & ensure the bombing does not resume later in the year,” he added on X.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) told JI, “For the sake of humanity, I pray this holds. It is so far past time to end this genocide, free the hostages, and surge food, water, and baby formula to starving families in Gaza.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) declined to comment, saying she had not reviewed the deal.

In comments to a supportive crowd of pro-Israel college students in Washington, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said Tuesday that the world needs to be reminded that “Hamas is the central cause of the war in Gaza.”  

“We have to remind the world that despite the amnesia, Hamas is the central cause of [Israel’s] war in Gaza. The primary responsibility for a war lies with its cause … Hamas is morally responsible, principally responsible for the war in Gaza,” Torres, a pro-Israel Democratic stalwart in Congress, told about 700 attendees gathered in Washington for the Israel on Campus Coalition’s three-day annual national leadership summit.

Torres went on: “The accusations against Israel, whether it’s genocide, apartheid or [deliberate] starvation, are all false. It’s all a propaganda campaign. But we also have to recognize there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza … We should be doing everything we can to alleviate the human suffering in Gaza.”

At the same time, Torres offered criticism of the Israeli government’s public diplomacy, saying that it should be “mindful of the words” it speaks.

“Israel is the first country in history to be conducting a war under the scrutiny of 24/7 cable news and social media … so given those realities, you have to be more effective, not only in the actual war but the informational war and be mindful of the words you speak.” 

“There are moments when I feel like the Israeli government has the worst PR operation I’ve ever seen,” Torres said. “We are morally better than the other side. We have the moral high ground, we should act like it.” 

Asked about the ideological direction of the Democratic Party, which has become increasingly critical of Israel, Torres sidestepped the question. “Look, I reject isolationism whether it’s coming from the far left or the far right. In the end, isolationism is no friend of the United States and it’s no friend of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Torres said.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin defended himself on Friday amid criticism that his response to a question about New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan did not sufficiently express his own view that the phrase should be condemned.

“The right-wing lie machine is at it again. That’s not what I said in this interview. I’ve never supported or condoned the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’, a phrase which is reckless and dangerous, as it can been [sic] seen as a green light to terror, and it should be unequivocally condemned,” Martin wrote in a response on X to the Washington Free Beacon.

“Let me be clear, at a time of rising antisemitism, there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence,” he added.

Several Jewish Democrats and organizations that represent them defended Martin’s handling of the Wednesday “PBS NewsHour” interview fallout.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Jewish Insider on Friday that, “We welcome the clarification from Chair Martin that the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’ is reckless and dangerous because it can be seen as a green light to terror. Chair Martin has never supported or condoned this phrase, and has now made it clear that there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence in the Democratic Party.”

“He also said that this phrase should be unequivocally condemned, and we would like to see all Democrats do exactly that,” Soifer told JI. 

The Democratic Majority for Israel said in a statement that the group “appreciates the recognition by DNC chair Ken Martin that the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’ is a dangerous call to incite violent action against Jews & Israelis.” 

“During the last two intifadas, thousands of innocent Israelis — Arabs and Jews — were victims of Palestinian terrorism. Words have meanings, and the meaning of that phrase is clear to those who have experienced the intifadas. This incitement of violence should never be acceptable and must be condemned unequivocally,” the statement continued.

Martin’s Friday comment was met with criticism from several Jewish Democrats.

Georgia Democratic state Rep. Esther Panitch took issue with the DNC chairman’s response, writing on X, “I am not right-wing, and I know what I heard. You have welcomed the person who refused to condemn the phrase you call dangerous. Why?”

Sara Forman, the executive director of the New York Solidarity Network, an organization representing Jews in New York, criticized Martin in a lengthy X post on Friday for his handling of the interview question and his subsequent tweet clarifying his position. 

“There is no excuse the chair of @TheDemocrats could come up with to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Ken Martin is the chair of the DNC and his idiotic ‘big tent’ comment is now a party position with a high cost – the loss of normal Democrats around the country,” Forman wrote.

“Incumbents will be held accountable for his words against Republican challengers who will make it very difficult and expensive to hold swing districts. And D challengers will be playing right into the hands of their Republican incumbent opponents when they distance themselves from his comments,” she continued. “For a party chair to fundamentally misunderstand his role, which is to fundraise so Democrats can win elections, is insane.”

The National Book Foundation is facing criticism from several Jewish groups for its decision to move forward in presenting a lifetime achievement award to Paul Coates, the founder of Black Classic Press, at its annual reception later this week — even after he was recently found to have republished antisemitic and homophobic texts.

Coates, the father of the journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, is set to receive the prestigious literary award at the 75th National Book Awards ceremony in New York City on Wednesday, where he will be honored for his longtime dedication to “celebrating the life of Black writers and bolstering their literary legacies” through his publishing company, founded in 1978.

But Coates, 78, has come under scrutiny in recent months for including in his catalog an antisemitic screed called The Jewish Onslaught, published in 1993 by Tony Martin, a former professor of Africana studies at Wellesley College, who sought to uphold a widely discredited conspiracy theory alleging Jewish domination of the Atlantic slave trade.

The book, which Black Classic Press had praised in a laudatory blurb, was recently removed without explanation from the company’s website following a Jewish Insider report, published in late September, that first highlighted its inclusion in the publisher’s online catalog.

In addition to Martin’s book, which was widely criticized as antisemitic at the time of its release, Coates has reissued several other works by authors who have espoused antisemitism and homophobia, the online journal Arc found in a review of the Black Classic Press catalog published last month.

The National Book Foundation, which in recent weeks has privately weighed its decision to honor Coates, has said that it will move ahead with the ceremony this week as planned, despite pushback from leading Jewish groups raising questions over the award.

In a statement shared with JI on Friday, the foundation said it “condemns antisemitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and hatred in all its forms,” adding it “also supports freedom of expression and the right of any publisher to make its own determination on what it chooses to publish.”

“Anyone examining the work of any publisher, over the course of almost five decades, will find individual works or opinions with which they disagree or find offensive,” the organization said. “The National Book Foundation is honoring W. Paul Coates, not for the publication of any particular titles or authors, but for his tireless efforts of scholarship, to ensure that Black voices and stories, that might otherwise have been lost, are instead preserved as an irreplaceable part of American literary history.”

But Jewish advocacy groups, including some that Martin singled out in his book nearly three decades ago, voiced frustration with the decision, especially amid heightened concerns over increasing incidents of antisemitism in the literary and publishing worlds in recent months.

The Anti-Defamation League, which denounced Martin’s tract at the time of its publication, took issue with the award in a statement to JI. “The revelation that Black Classic Press published and promoted a deeply antisemitic title, and the National Book Foundation has chosen to overlook this fact, is emblematic of a wider problem in the industry, where publishing companies continue to carry antisemitic books such as The Jewish Onslaught and literary organizations shun Jewish writers,” an ADL spokesperson said on Monday.

“Although this particular title from the Black Classic Press website was removed, it’s disturbing that the site continues to carry other books that contain antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ themes,” the spokesperson added.

Meanwhile, the World Jewish Congress, which Martin attacked in his book along with the ADL, called on the National Book Foundation to rescind its award to Coates. “At a time of surging global antisemitism, the World Jewish Congress finds it particularly disturbing that the National Book Foundation would fête publisher Paul Coates with a lifetime achievement award this week,” the group said in a statement to JI. “Coates, who recently republished The Jewish Onslaught, a pernicious essay that invokes antisemitic conspiracy theories and attacks Jewish organizations, deserves no such honor.”

“If the National Book Foundation truly condemns antisemitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and hatred in all its forms, as its executive director has insisted,” the WJC argued on Monday, “it would immediately halt the upcoming event.”

Naomi Firestone-Teeter, the CEO of the Jewish Book Council, which launched an initiative last February to help report antisemitic incidents in the book industry, said the award “speaks to the double standard of how antisemitism, Jews and Israelis have been treated in the literary and publishing world.”

“Even naming the existence of antisemitism in this field has been met with anger and denial by the secular literary community — a frightening reaction that I can’t imagine we’d see with any other group that wanted to acknowledge discrimination or bias that they’ve experienced,” Firestone-Teeter told JI. “To see authors and books uplifted that lean on antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories and at the same time seeing Jewish and Israeli authors and books discriminated against shows how deeply entrenched — and normalized — these views have become.”

The National Book Foundation did not respond to a request for comment from JI regarding the criticism from Jewish groups. 

Black Classic Press, which has avoided publicly addressing the controversy surrounding its catalog, did not respond to a request for comment from JI on Monday.

While Coates has won plaudits for his longtime commitment to discovering contemporary writers as well as reissuing works by obscure and celebrated authors, his decision to republish Martin’s viciously antisemitic book has threatened to overshadow such achievements as he prepares to accept the award on Wednesday.

Mary Lefkowitz, a professor emerita of classical studies at Wellesley College who frequently sparred with Martin — who died in 2013 — told JI it was “a shame” Coates had brought renewed attention to The Jewish Onslaught, which had also targeted her with antisemitic attacks.
“I believe in freedom of speech but I wish that Mr. Coates had not chosen to promote Tony Martin’s The Jewish Onslaught, a book which uses virulent antisemitism in order to defend a theory that has repeatedly been shown to be demonstrably untrue,” Lefkowitz said.