Nearly a dozen Republicans reintroduced a bill last week directing the president to sanction individuals, entities and governments providing support to Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The bill has been introduced in the Senate twice before, but struggled to progress both times. It underwent some significant changes before being reintroduced last week. When first introduced in the Senate in 2019, the bill had significant bipartisan support, but was reintroduced in 2021 with only Republican support. 

In the House, companion legislation has maintained bipartisan backing, and most recently passed the House as part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, but was not included in the final bill negotiated with the Senate. It had also passed the House in 2019 by a voice vote, but stalled in the Senate.

The latest Senate bill, titled the “Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad International Terrorism Support Prevention Act,” includes a new provision that would create a process for the chair and ranking member of several congressional committees to nominate individuals and entities to be sanctioned, requiring the administration to evaluate whether to impose those sanctions and report back to Congress.

The provision comes amid persistent accusations from Republicans that the Biden administration has failed to properly and fully enforce U.S. sanctions, particularly those on Iran, which is a leading sponsor of Palestinian terrorist groups.

The new legislation also places a time limit on presidential authority to waive the sanctions on governments supporting terror groups, limiting the waiver authority for those sanctions to two years after the legislation is enacted. After that point, the sanctions could only be terminated if the administration can affirm that the sanctioned entity no longer supports terrorism or will support terrorism going forward.

The new bill also expands the scope of the prior legislation, which targeted Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and their affiliates to cover a broader range of Palestinian terrorist groups.

The bill is being sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Braun (R-IN), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Rick Scott (R-FL), John Hoeven (R-ND), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Steve Daines (R-MT) and Todd Young (R-IN).

When the bill was reintroduced in 2021, a Democratic aide said timing issues, rather than the content of the bill, were responsible for its lack of Democratic support, but insisted that Democrats supported the underlying initiative. It’s unclear whether any Senate Democrats will support the updated bill.

“As these terrorist groups continue to show no regard for the people of Israel, I’m proud to reintroduce this bill, which seeks to impose sanctions against foreign nationals and governments that are actively providing material support to these groups,” Rubio said in a statement. “We must hold accountable the individuals who are aiding Hamas terrorists and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

Matt Zweig, the senior policy director for FDD Action, which is supporting the legislation, told JI, “Given the threats arrayed against Israel through the Iran threat networks of Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and associated armed groups, this legislation sends a clear message to the Iranian regime. Its malign conduct will only result in additional measures designed to disrupt, degrade, and ultimately dismantle its network of proxies.”

A version of the bill, the “Hamas International Financing Prevention Act,” that lacks the changes introduced in the Senate bill and is identical to the version that passed the House in the NDAA last year was reintroduced in the House in January by Reps. Brian Mast (R-FL) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ). It has since collected six additional Republican co-sponsors and one new Democratic co-sponsor.

As Turkey heads to a second round of voting for its president on Sunday, Israelis are watching the election closely and hoping that whomever emerges victorious will continue building, or at least maintaining, the fragile diplomatic ties recently refreshed between the two countries.

Most predict that the incumbent president, Turkey’s long-serving conservative leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will once again prevail. But the fact that this election came down to the wire – an unprecedented run-off against opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu, head of a mostly liberal and secular coalition and a member of the country’s tiny Alevi sect – shows the sharp divisions in a country dogged by a struggling economy and still reeling from a deadly earthquake that killed some 50,000 people.

In the parliamentary vote, Erdogan’s Islamist party, the People’s Alliance or AKP, together with the nationalist MHP won the majority of seats. Should Kilicdaroglu win the run-off, AKP’s showing in the election would give his coalition little power to steer the country in a new direction — or change diplomatic relations with Israel.

The ability of Erdogan, a conservative Islamist who is often forthright and vocal in his criticism of the Jewish state even when relations are improving, to win reelection is arguably good for Israel, analysts and experts watching the election closely told Jewish Insider. All of them agreed that regardless of the outcome, there will be little change to the shaky but now steady diplomatic ties between the two regional nations.

“First off, I think it’s more likely than not that Erdogan wins, but let’s not write off the opposition just yet,” Sinan Ciddi, a nonresident senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Jewish Insider. “But let’s say that Erdogan does win, I don’t think there will be any major changes from the, at least, rhetorical desire to rebuild substantive ties with Israel.”

Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak, a Turkish expert based at Tel Aviv University, agreed with that assessment, telling JI that because the decision to normalize ties with Israel was made by Erdogan himself  – after more than a decade of frosty diplomacy ­­– it is unlikely that he will upend the relationship again anytime soon.

“If you asked me before the normalization, my answer would be very different,” said  Cohen Yanarocak. “But the current normalization architect is Mr. Erdogan and despite recent tensions in the Gaza Strip, on the Temple Mount, or with Lebanon, we are still seeing that the current Turkish government is willing to preserve that normalization.”

“The most important factor here is the Turkish economy,” Cohen Yanarocak emphasized. “It was exactly because of the turmoil in the Turkish economy that Erdogan decided to normalize his relations with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, in order to attract money from the Gulf.”

“One of the most important conditions of this normalization was that Turkey had to make its foreign policy compatible with the needs of the Abrahamic Accords spirit,” noted Cohen Yanarocak, referring to the 2020 normalization agreements Israel signed first with the UAE and Bahrain, and later with Sudan and Morocco. “That is why we saw Erdogan first normalize relations with Israel and then mend ties with [Egyptian president] Abdel Fatah el-Sisi.”

He emphasized, however, that “Israel is only a tiny piece of Turkey’s foreign policy.” And, as long as the Turkish economy remains weak, he added, “I really don’t think that Mr. Erdogan will escalate the situation vis-a-vis Israel because he needs harmonious relations with all countries in order to attract more money.”

FDD’s Ciddi also said he believed that Erdogan was interested in preserving the renewed ties, even though his conservative, mostly Islamist, base are not fans of the Jewish state.

“I think he would like to have some sort of relationship with Israel different from what it was previously,” he said. “That [tension] only complicated life for him and he thinks that it essentially makes it more problematic for him in terms of his relationship with the United States.”

In a scenario where Kilicdaroglu manages to defeat Erdogan, Ciddi said his alliance might be a touch warmer, more genuine and more professional in its approach to Israel, despite election campaign statements made by the opposition leader to the contrary.

“I suspect [Kilicdaroglu] said that because he didn’t want to be accused of being a Zionist or an Israeli lover by the other camp,” Ciddi theorized. “If you look at the foreign policy team of that alliance, it includes retired ambassadors who have a long history of belief in a robust relationship between Turkey and Israel.”

But Cohen Yanarocak pointed out that even if Kilicdaroglu is successful, the parliament will still be controlled by Erdogan. “It means we will see a political deadlock, and I really don’t think that while there is a political deadlock, a future Turkish government would be interested in initiating a deliberate political crisis with Israel,” he said.

Israel and Turkey have had a tumultuous relationship more or less since Erdogan’s rise to power as the country’s prime minister 20 years ago. But they share multiple regional interests, including concern about Iran’s nuclear program and an interest in searching for additional natural gas sources in the Mediterranean Sea.

In 2010, following the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in which Israeli forces killed nine Turkish activists — including one Turkish American — attempting to reach the Gaza Strip, Erdogan suspended all diplomacy with Israel. 

Ties were partially restored six years later after Israel’s discovery of natural gas but grew strained again in 2018 when the United States moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, sparking deadly protests along the Gaza border. That violence, which saw some 61 Palestinians killed by Israeli troops, prompted Turkey to urge Israel’s ambassador to leave the country, forcing him to undergo a humiliating security check at the airport that was broadcast on social media.

After the signing of the Abraham Accords and in light of his country’s deepening economic woes, Erdogan began signaling once again a desire to improve relations. Eventually, a visit to Ankara by Israeli President Isaac Herzog in March 2022 – the first high-level diplomatic visit to the country in more than a decade – seemed to signal a new start.

“This is a very important moment in the relations between our countries, and it is a great privilege for both of us to lay the foundations for the development of friendly relations between our countries and our people,” Herzog said following his meeting with Erdogan at the presidential palace.

Erdogan told Israeli and Turkish reporters that he saw the historic visit as “a turning point in relations between Turkey and Israel.”

Several months later, last December, Turkey once again accepted the credentials of an Israeli ambassador, Irit Lillian, on its soil, and in January of this year, after a four-year absence, a new Turkish ambassador, Sakir Ozkan Torunlar, finally took up his position at the helm of the embassy in Tel Aviv.

“Erdogan has been in power for more than 20 years and we’ve had ups and downs with him; there’s even been times when we thought the relationship would end completely,” observed Gallia Lindenstrauss, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, who also believes he will win the vote again this week.

“Erdogan expressed his wish to reset relations with Israel during [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s previous term, even though it’s true that relations were normalized under the government of Bennett-Lapid,” she added, referring to Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, who headed the previous Israeli government. “Herzog has played a vital role in pushing ahead this process and still sees it as his role to keep these relations intact.”

The efforts have paid off, noted Lindenstrauss, pointing out that Turkey is one of Israel’s largest trading partners to the tune of some $8 billion, and more than 800,000 Israeli tourists visited the country last year, a sharp increase over pre-COVID-19 numbers. The two states also share intelligence and when the earthquake struck in February, Israel immediately sent its top search-and-rescue teams to the area.

Despite this, Lindenstrauss warned that the polarizing election, which shows cracks in Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic rule, combined with the fact Netanyahu’s current government is the most extreme right-wing government in Israel’s history, “has an explosive potential.”

“Turkey sees itself as one of the voices of the Palestinian cause in the international arena,” she said. “Erdogan has put emphasis on the issue, and in the past has made very strong statements against Israel, so it is very clear that at some point there will be another outburst by him.”

The latest version of the White House’s forthcoming national antisemitism strategy is expected to highlight the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism promoted by mainstream Jewish groups, but also reference the Nexus definition, an alternative promoted by progressives, individuals with knowledge of the strategy told Jewish Insider on Friday.

The development comes amid countervailing pressures on the White House: Mainstream Jewish groups are lobbying the Biden administration to include only the IHRA definition, and some left-wing groups — which argue that the IHRA definition is overbroad in characterizing some critiques of Israel as antisemitic — seek to either exclude IHRA or reference other definitions alongside it. Officials had also considered not mentioning any of the definitions, sources said.

One individual with knowledge of the strategy said that the IHRA definition is “highlighted” in the plan, which also “refers” to the alternative Nexus definition “as a resource” but “doesn’t stress it.” They also noted further changes are still possible. 

Kenneth Marcus, the chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said he spoke to individuals who had discussed the strategy with White House officials on Thursday, and said they had provided a similar readout. Marcus said that he was told the White House is planning to include IHRA in a “significant” capacity, but “at least [mention]” the Nexus definition “in a positive way in the document.”

Marcus noted, however, that the individuals he had spoken to had not directly seen the plan itself, but rather were informed of its contents by individuals in the White House. Marcus served as an official in the Department of Education during the Trump administration.

Another individual with knowledge of the strategy said they expect it to be released by Wednesday, May 24. State Department antisemitism envoy Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt said last Wednesday that it would be released “in the few days” or “next week.”

The Nexus definition, authored by academics in response to the IHRA definition, pushes back on the idea that applying double standards to Israel is inherently antisemitic. Nexus argues that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism,” and that “there are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently.” 

Another alternative definition, the Jerusalem Declaration, which argues explicitly that boycotts of Israel are not inherently antisemitic, is not expected to be included, according to a source with knowledge of the strategy.

The White House did not comment.

The Nexus definition’s inclusion in the strategy is likely to be seen as at least a partial victory for progressive Jewish groups that had urged the White House not to endorse the IHRA definition alone. Mainstream Jewish groups and scholars have argued that alternative definitions to IHRA are unacceptable and undermine efforts to combat antisemitism, and that they would undercut the effect of including the IHRA definition.

In a letter to U.N. officials earlier this week regarding the U.N.’s own antisemitism plan, leading U.S. Jewish groups led a coalition of global Jewish organizations to argue that “any references to these alternative definitions would only introduce greater confusion into the UN Action Plan and undermine our common efforts to combat antisemitism.”

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a series of tweets that “no other definitions work,” describing them as the product of “a pasted-up process organized by activists.”

Marcus, for his part, said that including the Nexus definition will make it “that much harder to get widespread Jewish communal support” for the strategy, and will place many Jewish organizations in a bind as to whether and how strongly to support the White House plan.

Marcus pointed to his work with college students facing anti-Zionist attacks, which he said are frequently brushed off as not antisemitic by university administrators. “The IHRA definition is the best tool that we have available to demonstrate that, while not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, some of it is,” he said.

When Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) announced her retirement from the House in 2019, it was hardly surprising that most of the candidates who ran to replace her were Jewish. That none of them won, however, was a surprising development in New York’s 17th Congressional District, where voters had long elected Jewish lawmakers such as Lowey, a pro-Israel stalwart who served in the House for more than three decades.

The district itself, which spans the Lower Hudson Valley, has one of the highest Jewish populations in the country. But since 2020, no Jewish candidates have stepped up to run for the recently redrawn swing seat now held by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), a freshman Republican whose narrow victory last November was attributed in large part to strong support from Orthodox Jewish voters in Rockland County, home to the largest Jewish population per capita of any county in the U.S.

As Lawler prepares to seek a second term in 2024, the emerging Democratic primary field now looks unlikely to draw any Jewish challengers. Yet while the recent dearth of Jewish candidates from both parties is a setback for Jewish representation, Jewish leaders in the Hudson Valley insist they are largely unfazed by the change. 

“My sense is, for many Jewish voters, all else being equal, people would probably prefer a Jewish candidate,” Elijah Reichlin-Melnick, a Jewish Democrat and former state senator in Rockland County who lost a reelection bid last cycle, told Jewish Insider in a recent interview. “But for most voters, including in the Orthodox community, it isn’t enough.”

Rivkie Feiner, who sits on the board of directors of the Jewish Federation of Rockland County, echoed that sentiment. During Lawler’s initial months in Congress, Feiner said, he has proactively engaged with local Jewish leaders while embracing a bipartisan approach to Middle East policy as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “He’s pro-Israel” and has “learned more about the Orthodox community than a Jewish politician may have,” Feiner said approvingly. “I value that more than somebody who says they’re Jewish.”

Nate Soule, a spokesperson for Lawler, touted the congressman’s efforts to advance legislation that would establish a special envoy for the Abraham Accords and said he has held “mobile office hours” for Jewish constituents in Ramapo while speaking at several events hosted by Jewish and pro-Israel groups. “He will continue to work to engage with the Jewish communities and all communities across the district in order to best serve all of his constituents,” Soule said in a statement to JI.

In the coming election cycle, Lawler, a former state assemblyman, will be depending on continued support from the traditionally conservative Orthodox community, which can typically deliver thousands of votes. The district, which leans Democratic, is among the top targets now being eyed by Democrats in their effort to retake the House.

So far, Democrats have drawn only one challenger, Liz Gereghty, a small-business consultant in Katonah and the younger sister of Gretchen Whitmer, the popular Democratic governor of Michigan. Gereghty, an elected Board of Education trustee in a local school district, launched her campaign last week, just a day before President Joe Biden arrived in Westchester as part of an effort to court moderate Republican voters amid stalled negotiations over the debt limit.

While Gereghty remains something of an unknown in the district, she indicated in a statement to JI that she is eager to cast herself as a mainstream Democrat on support for Israel. “Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East and we must remain committed to its security,” she said in the statement, which was shared by a spokesperson on Wednesday. “In Congress, I will work with my fellow members to support a continued commitment and strong relationship with Israel.”

The Democratic field is expected to grow in the coming weeks as former Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), a progressive Democrat from Rockland County who succeeded Lowey in 2021, mulls a comeback campaign. Last cycle, Jones chose to seek reelection in New York City after his district had been redrawn, forcing a potentially bruising primary battle against a powerful incumbent, former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), who was defeated by Lawler in the general election.

Jones, for his part, lost to a Jewish Democrat, freshman Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), in the crowded race for an open House seat covering Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. Jones is likely to enter the 17th District primary by early summer, a Democratic strategist who is close to the former congressman told JI. In a text exchange with JI on Wednesday, Jones said he had “not yet finalized” his “decision with respect to 2024.”

If he decides to run, however, the former congressman would be a strong contender for the Democratic nomination, several observers said. Not only has he proven to be a prolific fundraiser, but the redrawn district still covers approximately three-quarters of his old House boundaries, meaning he is a familiar face to most voters. 

Suzanne Berger, the Westchester County Democratic party chair, all but endorsed Jones for reelection if he runs again. “The Democrats that I interact with regularly are very excited or eagerly awaiting Mondaire Jones’ announcement and uniformly are looking forward to helping him get reelected,” said Berger. “I know that Liz Gereghty is in the race and that will play out over time.”

In a recent interview, Berger said that Jones is “taking all the steps one would expect someone to take if they’re planning to announce a campaign,” citing his outreach to “opinion leaders” as well as labor activists, donors and elected officials within the district. “I do understand that an announcement would be made either this month or next.”

“To me, he’s an important voice within the progressive movement for moderate Jews,” said Berger, who has met with Gereghty but was unaware of her positions on Israel. “He was part of the progressive community in Congress, but he was cognizant of the views of his Jewish constituents too.”

Even as he identified with progressives on a range of issues, Jones was seen as a supporter of Israel during his time in Congress, opposing conditions on U.S. aid to Israel, voting in favor of supplement funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system and co-sponsoring the Israel Relations Normalization Act to advance the Abraham Accords. He was also outspoken against antisemitism and rising hate crimes. 

“I have so appreciated being recognized by my Jewish constituents as a leader in Congress on such matters as combating antisemitism, supporting our ally Israel and advancing social justice,” Jones told JI. “When I won my primary in 2020, I did so with overwhelming and broad-based support from our diverse and dynamic Jewish communities here in the 17th District. Now, having been a leader in Congress, I’ve got an even stronger record to run on.”

Lawler, however, is preparing for a competitive election. Even if he is among the most vulnerable GOP incumbents seeking reelection, Lawler is already amassing a sizable war chest as he runs unopposed in the GOP primary, raising nearly $850,000 in the first quarter of 2023 alone.

“Lawler has worked that district assiduously,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist in New York. He predicted that Lawler will benefit from Democrats’ handling of “spikes in crime downstate,” as he did last cycle, in addition to highlighting concerns over the recent influx of migrants into suburban communities outside the city. “Right now,” Sheinkopf told JI, “there’s nothing to indicate in New York that that dynamic will change.”

The congressman has also done a “very good job shoring up support within the Orthodox Jewish community,” Sheinkopf said, which means he can likely depend on a “built-in” base as he seeks to appeal more broadly to moderate swing voters in a district that Biden claimed by 10 percentage points in 2020. 

“Lawler has to persuade voters who are voting for Joe Biden to vote for him,” Reichlin-Melnick, the former state senator from Rockland County, told JI, speculating that strong turnout among Orthodox voters may not be enough to help tip the scales in a presidential election year. He noted that Biden handily won the district even as the Orthodox community favored former President Donald Trump.

Gideon Taylor, the executive vice president and CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, said the organization’s “primary concern is that whoever runs for” the seat “understands the unique needs and complexities of the Jewish community, condemns antisemitism, supports the U.S.-Israel relationship and is in favor of initiatives against hate.” He said the council “will be submitting questionnaires to candidates, asking them their stance on issues important to the Jewish community.”

Among other potential candidates rumored to be weighing bids is Maloney, the former chair of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, who was recently nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. Another possible contender is Catherine Borgia, who resigned last month from her position as chair of the Westchester County Board of Legislators, according to a Democratic strategist informed of her thinking. Borgia did not respond to a request for comment from JI. 

That no Jewish candidates have emerged in the race may be indicative of a broader trend, said Herb Weisberg, a professor emeritus at The Ohio State University who specializes in Jewish American politics.

The total number of Jews elected to the House peaked in 1990, at 34 members, according to Weisberg, and is now down to 27, including just two Jewish representatives from New York, where antisemitic incidents have risen sharply in recent years. “I wonder if the nasty polarization of politics has made service in Congress less attractive to Jews with political aspirations,” Weisberg speculated.

“Politics has gotten to a point where people are turned off and don’t want to run for office,” added former Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), a Jewish Democrat whose district once included Rockland County. Still, he told JI in a recent interview, “I don’t really read too much into it.”

Citing the Massachusetts “Mapping Project” that alleged an antisemitic conspiracy theory, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation on Thursday that would require the Department of Homeland Security to assess the threat posed by cyber harassment and doxing by terrorists and malign foreign actors.

The “Doxing Threat Assessment Act,” introduced by Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Don Bacon (R-NE) and 23 co-sponsors, would direct DHS to report on the risks posed to both national security and individual privacy by the potential online activities of such malicious actors. 

The requested threat assessment would include a summary of cyber harassment strategies used by terrorists and foreign malign actors, a history of notable incidents, a review of threats from potential capabilities of U.S. adversaries and potential ways for law enforcement agencies to identify terrorist and foreign cyber harassment activity.

A press release by Wasserman Schultz’s office highlighted that the Mapping Project, which was organized by an anonymous group of BDS supporters and included the locations of Jewish groups and institutions across Massachusetts, had been endorsed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Iranian state-run media.

FBI officials said they were monitoring the project when it was first published, and lawmakers urged federal law enforcement to investigate its potential as a “roadmap for violent attacks by supporters of the BDS movement against the people and entities listed therein.” No publicly reported threats or attacks have originated from the project, and no direct links to terror groups have been demonstrated.

“Extremists are exploiting our online platforms to spread private information and incite violence against vulnerable individuals and groups,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “Arming our national security officials and law enforcement with knowledge of how these groups operate and for identifying vulnerabilities and preventing attacks is a first step to protect our communities from harm.”  

Bacon specifically linked the legislation to antisemitic threats in his own statement on the bill.

“This is a new frontier, and we need more information on the threat doxing poses, as we have seen anti-Semitic groups weaponize the data of victims. Jewish citizens and businesses have been targeted by this doxing,” he said. “With more information, our law enforcement will be able to develop a more robust approach to the protections of Americans and their data.”

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who also endorsed the legislation, linked it specifically to the Mapping Project.

“Last year, the Boston Mapping project, an antisemitic attempt to target and intimidate Jewish affiliated organizations across Massachusetts, including ADL, raised concerns about the threat of digital abuse, doxing, and other malicious activities from at home and abroad,” Greenblatt said in a statement. “I applaud and thank Reps. Wasserman Schultz and Bacon for their partnership in introducing bipartisan legislation to assess the threat of cyber harassment in an effort to drive policy to better protect vulnerable communities.” 

Addressing potential constitutional concerns on First Amendment grounds, the legislation notes that “the Constitution does not protect speech, conduct, or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit or committing an act of violence.” Republicans have largely balked in recent years at efforts to moderate or monitor online content.

Bacon was the only Republican signatory to the bill, which was co-sponsored by Reps. Becca Balint (D-VT), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Kathy Manning (D-NC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Wiley Nickel (D-NC), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Scott Peters (D-CA), Pat Ryan (D-NY), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Susan Wild (D-PA).

On this week’s episode of Jewish Insider’s podcast, co-hosts Rich Goldberg and Jarrod Bernstein are joined by former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland for a conversation on his work with the Auschwitz exhibition at the Reagan Library, Iran, Ukraine and his testimony during the impeachment inquiry against former President Donald Trump.

Below are excerpts from the conversation.

On his work sponsoring the Auschwitz exhibition at the Reagan Library: “The Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, which is one of the most beautiful and consequential presidential libraries in the United States, has really taken on a veneer of sort of bipartisanship and sort of a convening place — as you will recall in reading the recent news, the president of Taiwan was brought there to meet with our congressional leadership as sort of a neutral place for her to engage with them. So I felt that the Reagan Library, when they decided to put on a show called ‘Auschwitz: Not Long Ago, Not Far Away,’ and they presented it to me as a potential sponsorship, I thought it just hit all of the right notes. This is a show that was curated elsewhere and traveled to Reagan, and is there now for the better part of the year, and apparently is experiencing, you know, sold out crowds almost every day. It’s quite a show, and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about the Holocaust, who has learned potentially to deny the Holocaust, I think it gives a very, very strong and compelling argument that yes, the Holocaust did occur, yes, people, Jews and others were killed, and it’s something that’s never to be repeated. So regardless of where you’re coming from, what religion you are, I think this show at the Reagan Library, which by the way is a beautiful place to visit, besides the show itself, is really, really compelling and important.”

On the EU’s relationship with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal: “I realized that there was a tremendous pride of authorship in the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, by members of the European Union staff, particularly Federica Mogherini, who at the time served as the HR [high representative] VP, which is the equivalent of our secretary of state. And she thought that the deal that they had cut — she and [former U.S. Secretary of State] John Kerry essentially worked together on this deal — she thought the deal that they had cut with Iran was the best possible deal the West could get…what was happening at the time was, Iran had basically attenuated some of their proliferation, not all of it, there was a lot going on in secret that the intelligence community knew about, but the public did not. But what’s more important was the JCPOA allowed a lot of cash to flow to Iran. And as you both know, malign activities, mischief, terrorism, all of these things take money, they’re not free, and Iran was getting plenty of money from the West in order to conduct these activities. That money was not going to uplift their citizenry. So in the face of all of the evidence that we presented to the EU…frankly, what was driving their desire to not withdraw from it, was the business they were doing with Iran. There were a lot of countries and a lot of businesses in those countries, particularly in France, getting rich dealing with Iran, they didn’t want to give up those riches for the betterment of the globe.”

On foreign policy under successive U.S. administrations: “A lot of the Biden foreign policy, unfortunately, is what I would characterize as ‘petulant foreign policy.’ And while I am not a fan today of Donald Trump — I served under him, I’ve made it clear publicly that I do not support him for reelection, or for election I should say, based on a whole host of issues that I’m happy to discuss, and I have publicly — there were a lot of things in his foreign policy that I thought were correct, were effective, the withdrawal from the JCPOA is clearly one of them. And, you know, I think that a lot of the Biden policies were simply, when I call them petulant diplomacy, it’s basically ‘if Trump said left, I’m going to say right, if Trump said up, I’m gonna say down,’ without any real thoughtful analysis about, ‘Was Trump correct, even though I don’t like Trump, I don’t agree with Trump, I beat Trump, was he correct on this issue?’ I think very little of that went on initially in the Biden administration. There was a race to see how many policies they could reverse, and I think a lot of babies got thrown out with the bathwater, and this is one.”

On where the Republican party stands on support for Ukraine: “I think the vast majority of the Republican Party, with the exception of a few isolationist hardliners, believe that we need to leave all options on the table vis-à-vis Ukraine. I’m one who goes even further than that, I’m for a complete, unfettered support of Ukraine until they conclusively drive Russia out of all occupied areas, including Crimea, even if that’s done in stages, but I think it’s an existential threat to Europe to have Russia in any way be rewarded for their incursion. I think that most of the Republican Party and certainly the Democrats are there. It’s the ultra-right and the ultra-left that I think have far more of a voice than they deserve in this issue.”

On his testimony during the impeachment inquiry against former Trump: “I was one of the few witnesses that I believe had no real agenda when I finally had to appear before the committee. I wasn’t there to hurt the president, I wasn’t there to help the president by being untruthful, I was simply there to relay to the committee exactly what I knew to the best of my ability. There was a lot made of my revision of some testimony, when I was reminded by subsequent witnesses about certain meetings or certain things that happened that I had literally forgotten about and once they described it in their testimony, and they went into detail, all of a sudden my memory was jogged…I wasn’t a note-taker, so I didn’t have notes…When they went into that kind of granular detail, it tends to jog one’s memory, and so I made those appropriate revisions, and so on. As far as how the hearing affected me, well, I’m originally from the Pacific Northwest, which is a very progressive part of the country. I’m a Republican, you know, I’m sort of a fish out of water there. And a lot of people in that community, when they thought that I was originally there to help the president and lie to the committee on his behalf, which was not the case, basically had a knee-jerk reaction that wasn’t borne out by my conduct in the hearing. And my conduct in the hearing, when you really go up to 30 or 40 or 50,000 feet and you look at what I said or what I didn’t say, it really wasn’t that meaningful at the end of the day. It was somewhat helpful to him on some issues and somewhat harmful to him on others, but it was the truth.”

Bonus lightning round:Favorite Yiddish or Hebrew word or phrase? “I have one, it’s not profane. It’s ‘kochleffel’…it’s a Yiddish word. It literally means in German, ‘cooking spoon,’ but what it means figuratively in Yiddish, is a pot stirrer, someone who’s always trying to stir up trouble.” Favorite Jewish food? “I mean, phenomenal matzah ball soup. There’s nothing like it.” Favorite synagogue or Jewish community in Europe to have come across? “The big synagogue in Brussels, and the name escapes me at the moment, but it was a very impressive rabbi [and] congregation. Unfortunately, I could only go there twice, but it left me with quite a memory.”

Before Kristin Richardson Jordan abruptly announced on Tuesday that she was ending her campaign for a second term in the City Council, rumors had been circulating that the outspoken democratic socialist from Harlem was poised to be hit with a barrage of spending from outside groups. “What I had heard from a bunch of different places and people is that she was about to get destroyed,” said one Democratic insider in Harlem.

In fact, Jordan — a hard-left councilmember who had drawn scrutiny for her positions on policing, affordable housing and the war in Ukraine — was just days away from being pummeled by a newly created super PAC that had raised a major cash haul to thwart her candidacy, Jewish Insider has learned.

The group, called SAFE NYC, was preparing to release its “opening salvo” this weekend in what was to be a $400,000 independent expenditure including mailers, digital ads and a website, according to Jake Dilemani, a Democratic strategist who helped lead the effort, which has not previously been reported.

The first scheduled mailer, which Dilemani shared with JI, highlighted reporting that showed Jordan had missed half of her City Council meetings since last year. “Have you seen this person?” asked the mailer, plastering her face onto a milk carton. The super PAC was also planning to debut a new website, reviewed by JI, that denounced Jordan as an “extremist” with “out-of-touch” positions. The page, which remains private, cites her support for defunding the police and her opposition to a proposed housing development in Harlem that recently became a truck depot. 

In the coming days, SAFE NYC was set to unveil “several more mailers and a barrage of digital ads,” Dilemani told JI.

The new group, which intends to spend in other council races this summer, is a hyperlocal example of a broader national trend where moderate super PACs have played an increasingly prominent role in opposing left-leaning candidates running for federal office. In recent cycles, super PACs created by Democratic Majority for Israel and United Democracy Project, which is affiliated with AIPAC, have been among the leading spenders in several key House races where divisions between moderate and progressive Democrats have fueled tension.

For its part, SAFE NYC was among a few other independent expenditures that were expected to target Jordan in the coming weeks, including a $150,000 ad buy from a new super PAC called Future NYC, according to a political insider involved in the race. 

The treasurer of Future NYC, Jeff Leb, has previously been involved in a number of efforts funded largely by real estate executives to oppose left-leaning candidates running for state and federal office.

Inadvertently or not, however, Jordan preempted the incoming attacks when she withdrew from the June 27 primary, where she was facing three relatively moderate Democrats in one of a small number of competitive City Council races this election cycle. Dilemani, a partner in the New York City office of Mercury Public Affairs, suggested to JI that Jordan “got wind of” the ad barrage “prior to dropping out,” effectively hastening her departure.

The freshman lawmaker said in her announcement that there were “many reasons” for her decision. “The behavior of the Harlem Machine is self-centered rather than focused on community,” she said in a sharply worded statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday. “Dealing with these bad-faith actors — as well as the irresponsible journalism that amplifies them —  distracts our energy from the real work.”

A spokesperson for Jordan did not respond to a request for comment from JI on Thursday.

SAFE NYC, an acronym for Safe, Affordable for Everyone NYC, says it is “dedicated to supporting candidates who advocate for policies enhancing the safety, affordability and livability of the City of New York,” according to another private website that Dilemani shared with JI. The group’s “partners and funders,” he said, include members of the organized labor and business communities as well as a pro-Israel group called the New York Solidarity Network, or NYSN, an advocacy group formed last year to promote pro-Israel positions in state and local races.

Sara Forman, NYSN’s executive director, said the organization chose to get involved in the Harlem race because Jordan had made statements that were interpreted as hostile to Israel. Forman shared one screenshot of a now-deleted tweet, for example, in which Jordan had used a phrase — “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” — that is widely understood to be a call for Israel’s elimination as a Jewish state. 

Jordan has also said she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. “She was a very strong supporter of the tenets of the BDS movement,” Forman claimed. “We don’t want to see that. It’s targeting the Jews, and that’s just unnecessary.”

In an interview on Thursday, Forman said the range of activists engaged with SAFE NYC had separate motivations for opposing Jordan, even as they “all felt that Harlem would be better served having anyone else.” Because they “didn’t want to have multiple efforts all at once,” it made sense to unite behind the super PAC, she told JI. “It was really nice to see a coalition of the middle and even to the center-left.”

While the super PAC’s contributors haven’t been publicly disclosed, one notable figure involved in fundraising was Bruce Teitelbaum, a New York City developer and top aide to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, according to two people familiar with his engagement who asked to remain anonymous to discuss a confidential matter. Teitelbaum had sparred with Jordan over his proposal to build residential towers on West 145th Street in Harlem, which she rejected, claiming the project would spur gentrification. Instead, Tietelbaum opened a truck depot on the site in January.  

Teitelbaum’s involvement with SAFE NYC, suggested one of the people with knowledge of the developer’s activity, was payback for Jordan’s effort to scuttle his mixed-income apartment complex. “This was absolute retaliation,” the person told JI.

Tietelbaum did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday evening.

Meanwhile, Jordan’s challengers have suggested that they are more receptive to negotiations around the development proposal, which Teitelbaum resubmitted to the City Council earlier this year. The remaining candidates include Inez Dickens and Al Taylor, both of whom serve in the state Assembly, and Yusef Salaam, a criminal justice activist and a member of the exonerated Central Park Five.

On its website, which remains private, SAFE NYC gave each of Jordan’s three rivals a stamp of approval, encouraging voters to rank “only” those candidates on their ballots. “These candidates,” the website says, “have earned our support for their commitment to enhancing public safety, expanding housing affordability, creating jobs and economic opportunity, and improving the quality of life for New Yorkers.”

Two years ago, Jordan narrowly won a crowded primary in a surprise upset over the Democratic incumbent, Bill Perkins, who died on Tuesday. But while The Nation heralded Jordan as “one of the first two out Black lesbians in the council’s history,” she soon drew mounting criticism for her views on abolishing the police as well as a series of controversial social media comments expressing sympathy for Russia as it invaded Ukraine last winter. 

The one-term councilmember was facing a tough reelection by the time she bowed out of the primary earlier this week, forestalling the onslaught of spending that was soon coming her way. 

Even now that SAFE NYC’s ads won’t need to run, Dilemani, the Democratic strategist who helped launch the group with a colleague at Mercury, said their work isn’t finished. “The plan,” he told JI, “is for SAFE NYC to be involved in other council races this year and state legislative contests next year.”

In an Instagram post announcing her departure from office, Jordan, for her part, vowed that she would continue to fight for “economic justice, abolition, liberation and radical societal change.”

A coalition of major American and global Jewish organizations wrote to United Nations leaders on Wednesday urging them to include an endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in the U.N.’s forthcoming action plan monitoring and responding to antisemitism.

The letter comes amid continued concerns from many Jewish groups that antisemitism is pervasive in the U.N. system, as well as a domestic push by mainstream Jewish groups in the U.S. — including several of the lead signatories to the U.N. letter — for the White House to endorse the IHRA definition in its own upcoming national antisemitism strategy.

The letter, signed by 177 global Jewish groups and 120 academics from the U.S. and elsewhere, was organized by the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, European Jewish Congress, Jewish Federations of North America and World Jewish Congress.

“Any UN Action Plan must acknowledge the importance of the IHRA Working Definition to the vast majority of Jewish individuals, organizations, and communities who are the primary targets of antisemitic hatred, discrimination, and violence; are the Action Plan’s primary intended beneficiaries; and are best placed to identify manifestations of hatred and bias directed against us,” the letter reads.

The letter notes that the IHRA definition is not legally binding and calls it “an indispensable tool to understand and fight antisemitism, and one that can be used entirely consistently with fundamental human rights standards.”

The letter acknowledges that the IHRA definition’s examples, particularly those related to criticism of Israel, have prompted concerns from “some civil society organizations,” but argue that the inclusion of such examples “is precisely what makes this tool uniquely valuable for understanding and monitoring modern day antisemitism.”

The signatories further argue that other definitions crafted in response to IHRA “do not adequately or effectively clarify this form of antisemitism and are not appropriate for inclusion in the UN Action Plan” and that “there are few if any examples of their practical use.” As such, they argue, “any references to these alternative definitions would only introduce greater confusion into the UN Action Plan and undermine our common efforts to combat antisemitism.”

They also note that the IHRA definition “explicitly affirms that criticism of Israel per se is not antisemitic” and that governments that use it “have found it entirely possible to sharply criticize Israeli policies and practices.”

The letter highlights that the IHRA definition has been widely adopted by international governments and organizations, U.S. states, local governments and various other sectors of public life. It also notes that Ahmed Shaeed, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, has also recommended the IHRA definition’s use. 

The letter’s arguments in favor of IHRA and against other definitions of antisemitism come amid similar wrangling within the U.S. over whether to include or endorse the IHRA definition in the Biden administration’s antisemitism plan.

The administration is under pressure from left-wing groups not to include IHRA, or to also include other definitions alongside it, which proponents of IHRA argue would undermine its effectiveness. Mainstream Jewish groups are urging the inclusion of the IHRA definition alone. 

Several of the organizers and signatories to the U.N. letter have provided input to the White House on its antisemitism strategy.