Israel and antisemitism were among the dominant subjects of Arizona’s heated state treasurer debate on Monday evening, where the two candidates sparred at length over differing approaches to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. 

Kimberly Yee, the Republican incumbent, wasted little time before accusing her Democratic opponent, state Sen. Martin Quezada, of “directly” aligning himself with BDS, which she has aggressively opposed as treasurer. The 48-year-old former state legislator cited a recent event where Quezada, 45, helped organize the screening of a 2021 documentary, “Boycott,” that takes a critical look at anti-BDS legislation, including a recently passed law in Arizona.

The controversial screening last month at the state Capitol in Phoenix was denounced by Republicans as well as a group of Democratic state lawmakers who, in a letter posted to Twitter, exhorted colleagues from both parties not to attend. The documentary, wrote state Reps. Alma and Daniel Hernandez, among others, is a piece of “anti-Israel propaganda” made to affirm the BDS “hate movement” and “promote public misunderstanding of anti-BDS laws that have been passed on a bipartisan basis.”

Yee echoed that assessment during the debate, which was sponsored by the nonpartisan Citizens Clean Elections Commission. “His own party believes he is too radical for this position,” she said of Quezada, arguing that the movie he had shown communicates a message of “antisemitism and discrimination against the people of Israel.”

Quezada, who has previously defended the screening, forcefully rejected such allegations on Monday night. “First of all, the antisemitism charge, flat-out wrong, and it’s ridiculous to even suggest that,” he said. “I am not antisemitic, hard stop, full period right there.”

“We need to understand the constitutionality of every law that is passed that impacts the treasurer’s office,” he added. “I can do that, and I want to ensure that every move that the treasurer’s office makes is both legal and sound under our state constitution and our federal constitution.”

The 30-minute debate was moderated by Ted Simons of Arizona PBS and Stacey Barchenger of The Arizona Republic, who, in a follow-up question, asked Quezada if he believed it was a good use of taxpayer dollars to air the documentary on Capitol grounds. 

“Absolutely,” he said. “This goes to show that it is a political move to try to turn this into some sort of anti-Israel issue. It’s not. It wasn’t that at all. This was a film that examined the constitutionality of a bill that was just passed by the state legislature,” he reiterated. “As lawmakers, we need to understand the impact of the laws we pass. We need to understand laws that may come before us or proposals that may come before us in the future that mirror those laws.”

The Arizona state legislature approved its first anti-BDS legislation in 2016, barring companies that contract with state governments from participating in boycotts of Israel. It was subsequently blocked in federal court by a judge who deemed it was likely unconstitutional on free speech grounds. The bill was tweaked and signed into law in 2019 and upheld in federal court in 2020 following an appeal. 

As treasurer, Yee has enforced the law to divest from Ben & Jerry’s parent company Unilever over the Vermont-based ice cream company’s decision last year to stop selling its products in what it called “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” In August, she notified Morningstar that its Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) rating system contravenes the state’s anti-BDS law, giving the investment firm 30 days to prove otherwise or be placed on a list of blacklisted companies.

The treasurer’s race in Arizona has kept a lower profile than other statewide contests for Senate, governor and secretary of state, where a range of extreme-right candidates have all faced scrutiny for using antisemitic rhetoric or associating with known antisemites. Yee, on the other hand, presents herself as a comparatively moderate Republican and does not appear to have drawn similar concerns.

Speaking at the debate, which also touched on ESG investments and other topics, Yee continued to cast Quezada’s approach to Israel as problematic. “Any time there is a pro-Israel statement or post on Twitter or a social media platform, my opponent will quickly note, hashtag, ‘free Palestine,’” she said, alluding to at least one past tweet. “It’s very clear that you do not support the people of Israel,” Yee said, addressing Quezada directly, “and that is antisemitic, it’s discriminatory and it’s wrong.”

“Again, hard stop,” Quezada replied, later suggesting that Yee was “politicizing an issue.” 

During the May 2021 conflict between Israel and  Hamas in Gaza, Quezada retweeted a video of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), encouraging his followers to “take 10 minutes” and listen to the Palestinian-American congresswoman’s floor speech in which she accused Israel of “ethnic cleaning” and “apartheid,” among other things. “And always ‘speak truth to power, even if your voice shakes,’” Quezada wrote, quoting Tlaib. “#FreePalestine.”

“In this state, we have laws protecting Israel, our friend and ally,” Yee said on Monday. “In fact, I have increased our investments in Israel bonds because I support Israel.”

But Yee herself faced some pushback from Simons, one of the moderators, for suggesting that her investment strategy was politically motivated, an approach she had rejected earlier in the debate. Simons, seeking clarification, asked whether it was instead the case that Yee had invested in Israel bonds because they bring a greater return on investment. 

“Absolutely,” she replied. “First of all, we support companies that bring the highest return on the investment for the taxpayer, and so that is consistent with all of our investments.”

​​In the latest installment of a series exploring new and upcoming books, the team at Jewish Insider previews top titles coming out in October:

Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, by Maggie Haberman (Oct. 4): In one of the most-anticipated books of the season, the New York Times political reporter provides one of the most in-depth looks at the 45th president, from his childhood in Queens to his tumultuous four years in the White House.

If You Want Something Done: Leadership Lessons from Bold Women, by Nikki Haley (Oct. 4): The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations looks at 10 women — from former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to Cindy Warmbier, who fought for her son’s release from North Korean captivity — who have demonstrated courage and leadership, while sharing stories from her own trailblazing life.

By Way of Deception, by Amir Tsarfati and Steven Yohn (Oct. 4): This fiction thriller, inspired by real events, looks at two Mossad agents’ efforts to halt an Iranian plot to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into Israel.

Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder, by William Shatner (Oct. 4): Known to millions as Captain Kirk of “Star Trek,” Shatner — who grew up in a Conservative Jewish family in Montreal — is less an autobiography and more of a series of essays by the nonagenarian.

Morgenthau: Power, Privilege, and the Rise of an American Dynasty, by Andrew Meier (Oct. 11): The former Time magazine reporter digs into the history of the Morgenthau family, and looks at the profound effect its members had at all levels of business and government over the course of four generations.

Jewish Pride, by Michael Steinhardt (Oct. 18): The philanthropist traces his life’s trajectory from the Brooklyn neighborhood of Bensonhurst to Wall Street and into the public sphere as one of the most prominent contributors to Jewish causes.

Bibi: My Story, by Benjamin Netanyahu (Oct. 18): Weeks ahead of the election that could determine the final chapter in Netanyahu’s political life, the former Israeli prime minister and current opposition leader chronicles his life, weaving his personal narrative with the history of a young Jewish state.

The Escape Artist: The Man Who Broke Out of Auschwitz to Warn the World, by Jonathan Freedland (Oct. 18): Freedland, a longtime Guardian columnist, spotlights Rudolf Vrba, the first individual known to have escaped from the notorious Polish concentration camp, bringing with him a detailed report of Nazi atrocities being committed against Europe’s Jews.

Reclaiming Our Story: The Pursuit of Jewish Pride, by Ben Freeman (Oct. 24): In his sophomore book, Freeman looks at the history and impact of antisemitism to help Jewish readers foment a sense of internal pride over their history and identity.
The Women of Rothschild: The Untold Story of the World’s Most Famous Dynasty, by Natalie Livingstone (Oct. 25): Livingstone’s debut book dives into the history of the female members of the prominent Jewish family, and how they were key players in the Rothschild family’s successes.

Several Jewish advocacy groups are urging the Supreme Court to take up a case that could overturn decades-old precedent and significantly expand the scope of religious accommodations that employers are required to provide to their employees as the Court begins its new term.

In Groff v. DeJoy, a former mail carrier is suing the U.S. Postal Service, which disciplined him and threatened to terminate him because he refused to work on Sundays. USPS attempted to fill some of his Sunday shifts, but was unable to fill all of them. The mail carrier, an evangelical Christian, quit his job, saying that his religious beliefs did not permit him to work on Sundays. 

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended in 1972, employers must accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs unless doing so causes an “undue hardship.” Soon after this provision was passed, the Supreme Court ruled in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison that employers are not required to grant accommodations that impose anything beyond a “de minimis cost” on the employer.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said earlier this year that efforts to grant the postal employee an exemption from work on Sundays had strained USPS resources and forced his co-workers to take on additional shifts and responsibilities, spurred workplace tensions and negatively impacted morale, creating “undue hardship” to the USPS and his co-workers.

Jewish groups — particularly those representing Jews who strictly observe the Sabbath and Jewish holidays — have long sought to overturn the “de minimis cost test” established in the Hardison ruling. The Supreme Court has declined to take up similar cases in recent years, although three justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch — have indicated an interest in overturning Hardison.

The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA), Orthodox Union and The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty (JCRL) each filed briefs urging the high court to consider Groff v. DeJoy, with a range of Orthodox groups — including Agudath Israel of America — joining the COLPA brief.

While justices do not provide their reasoning for rejecting petitions, the groups that have filed briefs are hopeful that a new justice who joined the court since the last rejection of a similar case — likely Justice Amy Coney Barrett — will be supportive of this petition. Four justices must support a petition for a case to be considered by the court.

“Just the calendar of this month is a great illustration [of the Jewish community’s interest in this case] — because so many Jews have to take off so many weekdays for Rosh Hashanah, for Yom Kippur, for Sukkot.” Nathan Diament, the OU’s executive director for public policy, told Jewish Insider. “And thankfully, most employers are accommodating of that sort of thing, but not all are and we don’t want anybody to be forced to have to choose between their livelihood and their ability to observe holidays or Shabbat.”

The Jewish groups argue that the Hardison ruling effectively invalidated the Title VII provisions.

“That’s not what Congress intended… that was such a very big blow,” said Nathan Lewin, a constitutional lawyer who authored the COLPA brief; Lewin also argued the original Hardison case as a “friend of the court” and was involved in drafting the Title VII language in question.

Lewin told JI, “I thought, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had so held by that time,” that the language in Title VII, “meant that you should accommodate” employees’ religious observances.

“Since [Hardison] has come out, pretty much anything the employer says is a hardship is sufficient, and they don’t have to provide any evidence,” Howard Slugh, JCRL’s general counsel, told JI. “The courts have gone really far on this to even say, ‘Even hypothetical hardship is sufficient.’”

Lewin emphasized that he “cannot overstate… the importance of this case” and that he regularly receives calls from Orthodox Jews who say they have been denied jobs or promotions because their employers have rejected accommodations for them.

“I’ve seen lots of cases in which Orthodox Jewish individuals have, as we said in the brief, had their careers curtailed, have lost jobs because of Hardison,” he said. 

In addition to Groff, JCRL has also filed briefs in other cases which the justices have already agreed to consider this term.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, a Christian website designer who refused to create wedding websites for same-sex couples is challenging Colorado’s anti-LGBTQ discrimination laws. The judges will rule on whether compelling “an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”

Slugh said that the Colorado law dictates that “artists effectively have no First Amendment rights, their speech is never protected,” and argued that, if allowed to stand, it could force a Jewish designer to create art celebrating Kristallnacht. “We wanted to highlight how potentially dangerous this was to a large swath of identifiable individuals.”

Caroline Mala Corbin, a law professor at the University of Miami specializing in the First Amendment’s speech and religion clauses, told JI she expects the court to rule in favor of the website designer.

“Traditionally, preventing discrimination against a historically subordinated group has been seen as a compelling government interest… This court does not care,” Corbin argued, warning that such a ruling could also provide a Christian wedding vendor latitude to deny services to a Jewish couple.

JCRL also filed a brief in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which challenges affirmative action practices. “Schools should not discriminate on immutable characteristics… but if they’re going to they should discriminate in favor of people who have minority faith,” Slugh said.

A decision by nine student organizations at the University of California Berkeley School of Law in August to adopt bylaws prohibiting pro-Israel speakers sparked an uproar in the Jewish community over the weekend.

Last Wednesday, the Jewish Journal published an op-ed with the headline “Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones,” written by Ken Marcus, the founder and president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. The legal group has been at the forefront of a number of recent legal fights on college campuses tied to administrators’ failures to protect Jewish students. The op-ed ignited a media storm, with the New York Post, The Jerusalem Post, Newsweek, National Review and other outlets dedicating space to the issue. Barbra Streisand, who has lent her talents to Friends of the IDF fundraisers and has received an honorary doctorate from Hebrew University, tweeted to her nearly 800,000 followers, “When does anti-Zionism bleed into broad anti-Semitism?” and followed up with a second tweet linking to Marcus’ op-ed.  

Marcus called the move “frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night,” and warned that the decision could have potential legal implications for the student groups and the university.

Days later, The Daily Beast published a counter-argument, “​​There Are No ‘Jewish-Free’ Zones on the UC-Berkeley Campus,” written by Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the state university’s law school. Chemerinsky argued that fewer than 10 out of the law school’s 100 groups had adopted the bylaws, and while he disagreed with the move, none of the participating organizations had acted on the bylaws, and the debate remained a First Amendment issue.

Chemerinsky had denounced the original decision by student groups, noting that as a supporter of Israel’s existence, he himself could not be invited to speak to any of the participating student groups. In the wake of the announcement last month, the Jewish Student Association at Berkeley Law created a Medium account and issued its first and so far only post, addressing the controversy and expressing concern that the move would silence Jewish voices on campus.

In the following weeks, the conversation dissipated, according to individuals on campus who spoke to Jewish Insider. The fall academic semester began without incident, and remained quiet until the op-ed published in the Jewish Journal sparked outrage from coast to coast, leading observers, activists and parents of college students to speculate about the current state of affairs at the Bay Area university, known in the latter half of the 20th century as the epicenter of collegiate political activism.

“Both trends can be true,” Tyler Gregory, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, told JI. “We need to give credit to the administration and to the campus Jewish groups — the Hillel, the faculty — for making Berkeley a more friendly place for Jewish and Zionist students. At the same time, we should be rightfully concerned, and be paying attention to this new tactic of clubs trying to ban Zionists from campus groups.”

UC Berkeley is among the American academic institutions producing the highest number of joint academic papers with Israeli co-authors, and has a sizable Israel studies program, with visiting faculty from Israel on campus.

In 2019, the Center for Jewish Studies at Berkeley created the Berkeley Antisemitism Education Initiative to address antisemitism on campus. Ethan Katz, a professor at the university who chairs the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Jewish Life & Campus Climate and was one of the initiative’s co-founders, noted that the challenges facing Berkeley students are similar to those facing students elsewhere in the country, and that the administration has created “a very strong set of supports in place and a very strong set of institutional homes for those students.”

“I think that most Jewish students at Cal would say something along these lines of, you know, there are spaces in which they feel challenged or even that students could say things that would make them uncomfortable,” Katz said, “but that they have a lot of support from student life, people from faculty, and I also think it’s very important to note that there’s a great deal of support from the administration.”

Pro-Israel students at Berkeley, Katz explained, “face the same political headwinds that pro-Israel students are facing on many campuses.”

“Those concerns are real,” he added, “and there are things that make it challenging for those students sometimes… It’s a reality of where we are in the contemporary American conversation about Zionism and Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Gregory noted a shift in on-campus attitudes toward Israel in recent years, but acknowledged that the university’s activist reputation contributed to the outcry. “It holds a special place in our imagination, and I think that’s why this has gotten so much attention,” he explained.

“What I think is important, as far as [Marcus’s] argument is concerned,” he added, “is that we can’t let this trend spread to other places like a cancer. And so if we can understand what our legal tools are around this so that we can stop it in its tracks, great, that should be pursued. But people should not lose sight of the big picture at Cal.”

Israel’s two chief rabbis, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef and Rabbi David Lau, Egypt’s Grand Imam Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb and Pope Francis were just some of the top clergy who gathered last month at the VII Congress of Leaders of World And Traditional Religions in Astana, Kazakhstan’s capital city, to discuss ways in which the world’s religious leaders could work together to overcome extremism, conflict and disunity around the world.

“It was an extremely well-organized event and obviously the centerpiece was the participation of the pope,” Malcolm Hoenlein, vice chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who was honored at the event for his multifaith work, told Jewish Insider.

“People’s remarks were very sensitive and guided towards the role religion can play in fighting against extremism,” Hoenlein, who has seen the congress grow from an intimate gathering with a handful of religious leaders in 2003 to a global forum drawing religious leaders from more than 100 countries and communities, told JI.

“This is the seventh in a series that the government of Kazakhstan has hosted,” he continued, describing how it began with a visit to the Muslim country by a delegation from the Conference of Presidents and how the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and four Muslim countries in 2020 has helped open up dialogue and softened attitudes towards the Jewish community and Israel.

“When people make speeches they convince themselves and others of the role and responsibility that religious leaders have to fight extremism and terrorism, especially within their own faiths,” Hoenlein said, adding that he hoped such a high-profile conference would help to “create the universal climate against hate.”

The presence of the pope at the event for the first time helped to propel the interfaith meet-up into the spotlight, he noted.

“The pope certainly elevated the gathering because he brings a lot of attention and media focus,” Hoenlein continued. “He was the centerpiece; his participation wasn’t the same as everybody else – he came with a big entourage of people and him being there certainly elevated the significance of the gathering.”

“Peace is born of fraternity,” Pope Francis said in his concluding address. “It grows through the struggle against injustice and inequality; it is built by holding out a hand to others. We, who believe in the Creator of all, must be on the front lines in promoting the growth of peaceful coexistence.”

He added: “We must bear witness to peace, preach peace, implore peace.”

The participants, who included representatives of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Bahá’í, as well as notable leaders of international organizations and political figures, signed an official declaration of peace and unity, which was later submitted to the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Hoenlein said that while the formal speeches and declarations were moving, it was the activities on the sidelines, in the hallways beyond the main plenum, that were most powerful.

“I sat beside an Iranian and a Pakistani,” he said. “When I first sat down, I shook hands with the Iranian, who holds a significant position, but he was very reluctant to talk to me, obviously, but later on, by the time we finished the second session, I engaged him, and we talked – the same with the Pakistani.”

Also behind the scenes, both of Israel’s chief rabbis (Yosef represents the Sephardi community and Lau the Ashkenazi) held face-to-face meetings with the pontiff, with the Jewish and Catholic leaders discussing ways to bolster cooperation between the two religious groups, according to media reports.

Hoenlein said that the role of Kazakhstan, a Muslim majority country, was essential to the success of the gathering. 

“I think Kazakhstan is a model for what we can hope for in other Muslim societies as we open our relationship with other Arab and Muslim countries,” he said, adding that thanks to the Abraham Accords “the atmosphere is better because I think people have seen the opportunities that exist for Israel and with Israel, and I hope that Israel will have more and more representation at gatherings like this in the future.”

It was a scene reminiscent of the lobby of any synagogue, or a kiddush luncheon after the conclusion of Shabbat services: Hundreds of Jews gathered in one big room, schmoozing and saying “Shana tova” and enjoying some brisket and challah. 

These were the leading figures of American Jewish life — rabbis and educators; activists, politicians and policymakers; nonprofit professionals and lay leaders — but instead of meeting outside of Yom Kippur services, they were standing under glistening chandeliers in the White House’s stately East Room for the first-ever White House Rosh Hashanah event. 

“If I acknowledge everyone by name, we’ll be here [until] the Hanukkah reception in December,” President Joe Biden joked at the start of his remarks. 

He mentioned Rabbi Michael Beals of Congregation Beth Shalom in Wilmington, Del., a synagogue in Biden’s hometown. “That’s where I received my education. I probably went to shul more than many of you did,” he said. “It’s been a home, and over the years, we’ve shared deep conversations about faith and finding purpose.” 

Biden addressed the crowd, with many Jewish Democratic leaders, to loud cheers and applause. He quoted the Talmud and the late British Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, offering what amounted to a D’var Torah that applied Jewish teachings to his policy agenda. 

“The late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who passed away two years ago, once said that the most important lesson of the High Holidays is that nothing — nothing — is broken beyond repair,” Biden said. “We’ve emerged from one of our most difficult moments in our history. I believe nothing is broken beyond repair, and there’s a lot we can do to change things and bring people together.”

Biden referred to the violent 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., that he has said inspired his presidential campaign, saying that he wanted to “stand[…] up to antisemitism that was constantly lurking in the shadows.” He shared a reflection from his trip to Israel in July, which included a visit to Yad Vashem, where he met two Holocaust survivors.

“I think that after all they experienced in the ‘40s, today they’re witnessing a record high antisemitism in 2022 they never thought would be the case again,” said Biden. He touted his record on fighting antisemitism and extremism, mentioning a recent summit that tackled hate-fueled violence, his administration’s support for increased funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and the creation of a national strategy for fighting hate-based violence. 

He gave a shout-out to Deborah Lipstadt, the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism. “Where are you, Deborah? All the way in the back. That’s usual with her, humility,” said Biden. 

Biden, First Lady Jill Biden and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff all began their remarks by mentioning the impact of Hurricane Ian. “This reception comes at a very difficult time for so many Jewish families in Florida, possibly for some of you who have loved ones in Florida, mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends,” said Biden. 

“Temples will be shuttered on Yom Kippur,” Jill Biden acknowledged, “and some will have to break their fast without beloved family beside them.” 

The most memorable moment for many was a surprise performance by Israeli-American violin virtuoso Itzhak Perlman, who performed the prayer “Avinu Malkeinu” from the High Holidays liturgy. Guests sang along. 

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), called the performance “epic.” Perlman’s performance “at the White House, three days before Yom Kippur — what could be more magical?” 

Shemtov was at the White House until midnight the night before overseeing efforts to kasher, or make kosher, the White House kitchen, a process he’s led for every Jewish event at the White House for more than two decades.

White House liaison to the Jewish community Shelley Greenspan helps kasher the White House kitchen the night before the Rosh Hashanah reception. (Credit: Rabbi Levi Shemtov/American Friends of Lubavitch)

The Bidens used to host a Rosh Hashanah reception at the Naval Observatory when Biden was vice president, a gathering that was much less formal than the White House event. 

“He would kind of yuk it up and talk about whoever was coming to pose with him and Dr. Biden [in the photo line],” said Matt Nosanchuk, president and co-founder of New York Jewish Agenda who served as the White House liaison to the Jewish community in former President Barack Obama’s administration. 

Biden did not stick around long to chat with attendees, but he did borrow the phone of National Council of Jewish Women’s Chief Policy Officer Jody Rabhan to take a selfie with a couple dozen people. The event’s guest list was intended to reflect the diversity of the U.S. Jewish community, with efforts made to ensure representation of Jews of color, Orthodox Jews and LGBTQ Jews, according to officials with knowledge of the event plans. 

“We are very grateful that we get to continue in the tradition that they set forth,” Emhoff said, referring to the Bidens’ famous Naval Observatory gatherings. “The doorposts there are protected by mezuzot — that’s two mezuzahs. We hosted a Passover Seder. We’ve lit a historic menorah for Hanukkah. But now, we gather in the White House during the Days of Awe.” His wife, Vice President Kamala Harris, was present but did not give a speech.

Later in the day, Biden spoke by conference call to 1,200 rabbis in an annual High Holidays tradition.

Blake Masters, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Arizona, takes a characteristically partisan position while arguing in a new Middle East position paper that Israel can no longer count on bipartisan support from Congress. Laying the blame before his political rivals, Masters accuses “zealots like ‘the Squad’” — as well as, he suggests, most other Democrats — of contributing to an unfortunate dynamic that only his party can ameliorate.

“It is a shame to say, but support for Israel has become a partisan issue,” Masters writes in his recently finished policy paper, which was obtained by Jewish Insider on Thursday. “That means that Israel’s future is tied to our elections — to making sure that our representatives are true friends and supporters of Israel,” the 36-year-old political newcomer adds, before referring to himself in the third person. “In this race, that is Blake Masters.”

Such claims are typical of the cocksure rhetoric that Masters, a Trump-endorsed protégé of Peter Thiel, has employed over the course of his first bid for elected office. But if the former venture capitalist believes he is best equipped to defend the U.S.-Israel alliance in the upper chamber, his written assurances do not seem to match what some critics have viewed as a lack of substantive engagement on Middle East policy issues throughout the race.

Masters has hardly positioned himself as a pro-Israel stalwart in his effort to defeat Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a former astronaut and Navy captain who, while viewed as a vulnerable incumbent in a competitive swing state, has consistently outperformed his neophyte opponent in public polling.

Even as Masters has touted his support for the “special relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, his public statements on the matter have — like the Democrats who he says are unwilling “to stand up for Israel” — been “few and far between.”

In an interview with JI published in March, Masters went into some detail on his approach to U.S. security assistance for Israel, Iron Dome funding, the Iran nuclear deal and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, among other issues.

But since then, some Jewish leaders and pro-Israel advocates in Arizona have hoped to hear more from Masters, a high-profile member of the populist-leaning “New Right” movement who has embraced a heterodox if loosely defined belief system on international engagement. 

The single reference to the Jewish state included on his campaign site, where Masters writes that he will support “military action only in defense of the U.S. and our allies like Israel,” underscores a decidedly isolationist approach, albeit somewhat calibrated, that is gaining traction among some other Thiel-backed candidates this cycle, including J.D. Vance and Joe Kent. 

It is, however, a posture that mainstream pro-Israel advocates, particularly those affiliated with the bipartisan lobbying group AIPAC, have traditionally viewed as untenable — and some of the tensions endemic to Masters’ campaign have demonstrated why such reservations may exist in the first place.

As a former hardcore libertarian, Masters appears to have once held a more skeptical view of Israel. In 2010, for instance, he shared an article on Facebook that denounced Israel as “the North Korea of the Middle East,” JI reported in April. Meanwhile, as an undergraduate at Stanford University, Masters wrote a now somewhat infamous essay for a libertarian website in which he quoted Hermann Goering, cited a conspiracy theorist who has frequently been accused of antisemitism and suggested “the U.S. hasn’t been involved in a just war in over 140 years” — a claim he now acknowledges went “too far,” even as he has insisted that the essay otherwise “holds up.”

That he has also been endorsed by a prominent neo-Nazi publisher as well as the Christian nationalist founder of a social media platform for white supremacists has also contributed to a sense that Masters — who rejected their support — has simply shifted from one extreme to the other.

Still, Masters has his defenders. “I can tell you that in my conversations with Blake, I think he fundamentally rejects, strenuously rejects antisemitism in any form whatsoever,” Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, explained in an interview with JI last month. He said he was “very confident” that Masters will “stand with the Jewish community” and is also committed to upholding “pro-Israel” values. 

But others have regarded Masters as more of a cipher, in part because he did not produce an Israel position paper during the primary, as is customary for most viable House and Senate candidates.

After the Aug. 2 primary, Jewish Republicans and other pro-Israel activists had been emailing the Masters campaign for weeks to gauge his interest in producing a Middle East policy paper, but they were unable to get a response until recently, according to a source familiar with the outreach who requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. The paper was finally distributed late last week, with just over a month remaining until the November election.

A spokesperson for Masters’ campaign did not respond to a request for comment as to whether he had solicited feedback from pro-Israel supporters or if he wrote the paper entirely on his own, as he has reportedly done with his frequently updated campaign site that has come under scrutiny for scrubbing past statements on abortion and other issues.

The paper, at just two pages, is relatively short on details. By contrast, one of Masters’ Republican primary rivals, Mark Brnovich, the term-limited attorney general of Arizona, produced a seven-page Israel paper that was historically informed and packed with data and policy points.

Despite a somewhat perfunctory tone, Masters appears to have fine-tuned his Middle East foreign policy views somewhat in the months since talking to JI, when he spoke in a tautological manner that indicated he was still feeling out his views.

“Our countries have a relationship that is unique and special, and so Israel is not just another country, and we might not fund a similar thing for every other country in the world, but every other country in the world is not Israel,” he said at the time, rationalizing his support for funding Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system.

In the first section of his new paper, Masters declares that Israel and the U.S. “share a powerful and strategic relationship that must be championed and safeguarded, for the good of all freedom-loving peoples across the globe.” He describes Israel as a “key partner in diplomacy, intelligence, and technological innovation” that “deserves continued and expanded American support.”

The U.S. “benefits directly from countless Israeli efforts,” he says, adding a patriotic flourish: “But our nations share a philosophical and moral vision as well: one of peace, of freedom, and of religious tolerance. Israelis and Americans share the fundamental belief that you have a right to defend yourself, to fight for your family, to defend your nation, and to practice your faith free of persecution.”

The language is reminiscent of a pledge on his campaign site to protect religious freedom at home, suggesting some overlap with a domestic agenda focused in part on culture war issues such as ending “the scourge of wokeness in schools” and opposing “men in women’s bathrooms,” among others. “On my watch, you and your family will always be free to practice your religion, according to your conscience,” Masters, who is Catholic, writes after promising to ensure that ‘left-wing ‘antidiscrimination’ law never infringes on your right to honor God in peace and freedom.”

On the second and final page of his policy paper, Masters runs through six “key issues,” starting with a vow to oppose BDS, promote trade with the Jewish state and uphold the $38 billion in U.S. aid to Israel that is guaranteed in a 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries, signed during the Obama administration. Perhaps unexpectedly, owing to his broader aversion to providing foreign aid to countries beyond Israel, Masters suggests that he will work “to build” on such “financial commitments” in “the future.”

Elsewhere, Masters extols the Abraham Accords as an “incredible success” that set a “powerful precedent” for regional cooperation between Israel and a number of Arab nations that are aligned in their mutual concerns over Iran. 

Using the only two exclamation points in the paper, Masters takes an especially vociferous stand against the Biden administration’s renegotiation of the Iran nuclear deal. “It was lunacy to believe that Iran would be honest and self-report!” he shouts. “Now, President Joe Biden is trying to get the United States back into the Iran Deal — on even worse terms than President Obama! Blake Masters opposes these misguided efforts.”

While he expresses support for U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Masters does not touch on diplomacy with the Palestinians or explicitly address security risks from Hamas and other threats. In the interview with JI, Masters said he was theoretically open to a two-state solution but would ultimately defer to Israel. Masters also makes no mention of efforts to counter Arizona’s worsening water crisis through such measures as desalination, a technology developed by Israel and touted by a number of leading GOP figures in the Copper State. 

Rusty Bowers, the Republican speaker of the Arizona House, visited Israel in August to learn more about water resource management. Arizona’s outgoing Republican governor, Doug Ducey, also traveled to Israel last spring to discuss water technology initiatives, among other things. Kari Lake, the GOP gubernatorial nominee who hopes to succeed Ducey, argues on her campaign site that “the future is desalination,” while praising Israel’s water technology advancements as a model for the state. “Israel is rapidly turning the Negev Desert into one of the world’s great agricultural areas,” she writes, “we can do the same”

For his part, Masters takes a somewhat more adversarial approach to water concerns, which are addressed in a brief bullet point on his website. “I will fight the federal bureaucrats who for decades have siphoned away our water and sabotaged our rural economy, citing bogus environmentalist concerns,” he says.

Masters has repeatedly criticized Kelly throughout the race, but he refrains from mentioning his Democratic opponent in the position paper.

The junior senator, now seeking his first full six-year term after winning a special election in 2020, is largely aligned with the Democratic mainstream on Middle East policy. In an interview with JI two years ago during his primary bid, for instance, he backed a two-state solution, observed that moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem “seems to be working,” and said it had been “a rather poor decision” to abandon the Iran nuclear deal.

Kelly holds something of a personal connection to Israel. He was once stationed in Houston with the Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, who died in 2003 in the Columbia space shuttle explosion. He remains close with the Ramon family. Kelly, who first visited Israel months before he announced his Senate bid, is endorsed by AIPAC’s new political action committee as well as the Jewish Democratic Council of America and Democratic Majority for Israel.

Masters, who says he visited Israel in 1998 on a week-long business trip with his father, reserves some of his fiercest criticism for the United Nations and “similar organizations” that, he alleges, “have disgraced and de-legitimized themselves” in their “willingness” to “attack Israel.”

But he seems most enlivened when he invokes the growing threat of “wokeness,” which he credits with contributing to “a recent surge in antisemitism.”

“It’s incredible that you hear constantly about ‘structural racism’ from the mainstream media, but never a peep about the rising threat of antisemitism here in the United States and throughout the Western world,” Masters writes, before slipping into the third person again. “Blake Masters will wield the cultural power of the U.S. Senate seat to oppose the creep of antisemitism. America cannot be allowed to become France.”

Additional reporting contributed by Marc Rod.

Former Israeli lawmaker Tzipi Livni discussed the clash between globalization and the concept of the nation-state, introducing her theory of “globali-nation,” at a Georgetown University symposium honoring former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Thursday.

During the symposium, sponsored by Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service (SFS) and the Aspen Ministers Forum, students and other attendees were treated to a series of moderated conversations with political bigwigs who had overlapped with Albright throughout her career.

Livni, who served as Israel’s foreign minister between 2006-2009, appeared alongside Mayu Ávila and Margot Wallström, the former El Salvadorian and Swedish foreign ministers, respectively, during an afternoon session between members of Albright’s Minister’s Forum. Albright created the Forum for ex-ministers, which she often referred to as “Madeleine and her exes,” according to SFS dean Joel Hellman, to enhance relations between the United States and Europe. 

Financial Times editor and columnist Edward Luce moderated the conversation, during which Livni spoke on the importance of making sure young people feel connected to democracy and keep it alive in the future, which she mentioned had been the topic of one of her and Albright’s first meetings.

“It’s clear that the atmosphere is that there’s a clash between globalization and the nation-state. And I can understand why, because globalization, that was a real promise at the beginning, lots of people were left behind, worried about their family, about their work, about their children, and in a way the feeling is that the nation-state is the opposite path,” Livni said. “I would suggest something that I call, “globali-nation.” It means that being part of a nation-state, believing in your own country, being a patriot, it’s fine, as long as it doesn’t turn into nationalism in a manner that you do not respect the other or the rights of minorities within your own country.”

Luce asked Livni why Israel appeared ambivalent toward the war in Ukraine, despite factors that would seemingly drive the country to act — Ukraine being a small democratic country with a Jewish president for one.

Livni responded by saying that while Israel at first had to tread carefully due to its cooperation with Russia when it came to security interests in Syria, it quickly became clear which side of the conflict was at fault and with whom Israel should stand.

“In this case of the invasion to the Ukraine, it’s very simple. It’s the bad guys against the good guys, this is the situation. But at first, it is true that Israeli leaders [tried] to work within the drops in the way, to mediate, to find the solution maybe between [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, but you cannot work within the drops when it’s pouring and raining,” Livni said. “This time, I believe that the choice was easy, even though at first it took some days for the Israeli government to discover it.”

The former Knesset member compared the leadership of former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom Livni lost in her own bid for Israel’s top seat, to that of former President Donald Trump. Likening her popular vote win and subsequent defeat to that of “another female that you’re going to meet later” — former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton spoke alongside former President Bill Clinton at a separate session — Livni described the change in tactics brought on by Trump to demonize political opposition within one’s own country to gain support.

“When the President of the United States is crossing a red line of democracy, is attacking the democratic institution, this red line doesn’t exist anymore in the entire free world,” she said. “I saw the same [type of] tweets in English and in Hebrew.”

Livni added that during the 2015 general election, Netanyahu used her attempts at brokering peace with the Palestinians to portray her and her supporters “as traitors, as collaborators, as representing the Palestinian cause and not the Israeli cause.”

While the conversation focused mainly on current global issues, Albright’s name was invoked throughout the hour whenever a comment was made that she would have agreed with or a conflict she would have had an opinion on was discussed — and most keenly, in regard to the subject of women in power.

“I think that mostly when we [women] are there in [the] decision-making room, it’s about making a change and not about our own ego. And I think that this is a major difference between men and women in power. We are thinking about solutions, about listening, about how to solve this problem, when sometimes men are more about who’s gonna win,” Livni said.