In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, more than 2 million Jews arrived in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. This mass immigration turned New York into the cornerstone of Diaspora Jewry and cemented its status as the largest Jewish city in the world. From this vast community emerged a long line of Jewish politicians with historic influence. Chief among them is Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Schumer currently serves as Senate minority leader, after serving as majority leader from 2020 to 2024 under the Biden administration. He is the Jew elected to the highest office in American history and for many years placed the cultivation and strengthening of U.S.-Israel ties at the top of his agenda. In recent years, however, Schumer has been forced to contend with growing pressure inside his party, leading him to adopt more cautious positions.

In recent years, we have witnessed a troubling and dangerous shift in New York City. Beyond the broader rise in hostility toward Israel, there is a growing trend of candidates being elected to public office precisely on that ticket. The driving force behind this profound change is the radical wing of the Democratic Party, especially the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.

The peak of this radicalization process was reflected in the election of DSA figure Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City. Mamdani has pursued a hostile and extreme line against Israel, including a conspicuous refusal to take part in the Israel parade.

The mayor-elect has called for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest, and his policies are reflected on the ground in his veto of municipal legislation intended to prevent intimidating protests outside Jewish schools.

His attitude toward Israel and the Jewish community is clearer than ever, as seen in the sharp attack he launched last week against the AIPAC lobby, which he called a “monster.”

Despite these positions, he continues to enjoy enormous popularity. Mamdani bet on support for radical candidates such as Claire Valdez, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier. The long line of people waiting in a park to take selfies with him after the Knicks won the NBA championship shows the depth of his support. In effect, New York underwent a political upheaval overnight: Mamdani’s candidates won, and supporters of Israel received a warning sign.

The danger of Chevalier

The most worrying focal point is Chevalier, who defeated veteran Rep. Adriano Espaillat in District 13. Chevalier’s background, including her conversion to Islam, dovetails with her extreme political positions against Israel. At the same time, the hostile atmosphere directed at Jewish elected officials is evident, and troubling footage shows her organizing the pro-Palestinian protest held just two days after the October 7 massacre.

This toxic atmosphere is seeping into the city’s streets and creating the painful sense that Jews are no longer welcome in their own home, as reflected in reports of growing feelings of insecurity.

The case of Jewish Rep. Dan Goldman, who lost the primary to Brad Lander, offers a glimpse into the loss of a sense of safety among Jewish figures in the public sphere. Lander, identified with the far-left wing, has become a vocal critic of Israel and has led a sharply oppositional line against its policies. Goldman was disgracefully expelled this week from a cafe in his own city, an incident that illustrates the depth of the rupture.

The current election campaign centered in large part on the demand to halt arms sales to Israel, a watershed issue for the winning candidates who sanctified their hostility. From the outside, New York, the city that created the Israel parade in the 1960s, is now becoming the spearhead of the fight against it.

Anyone who sees all this as an inevitable “demographic process” is wrong and misleading others. This is cold, calculated political engineering. In midterm primaries, candidates are elected on the basis of just tens of thousands of votes in safe seats. This system allows for the relatively easy takeover of districts, flooding Congress and local authorities with radical representatives, just as the Tea Party did to the Republican Party, only in the opposite and more extreme direction.

This is a systematic attempt, from within, to change the DNA of the Democratic Party and turn it into a fringe party. Americans watching from the sidelines understand that this is a culture war over the character of America. If the Democratic Party does not stop this internal radicalization, it may find itself not only out of power in 2026 and 2028, but completely disconnected from the American public in whose name it claims to speak.

Published on Ynet

The post New York: from global Jewish capital to anti-Israel hub first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Not long ago, in partnership with the Pittsburgh JCC, I helped convene a conversation that many people assumed could no longer happen: Bret Stephens and Jeremy Ben-Ami on the same stage talking seriously about Israel, American Jews, and the future of the US-Israel relationship.

I wanted to test whether civil discourse and reaching across the aisle still mattered. I hoped to show what I already believed: despite sharp differences, they shared substantial common ground.

Early on, Jeremy conceded that his side too often minimizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns and needs to correct that. Moments later, as he warned about the perilous erosion of Israeli democracy and the threat posed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bret echoed his alarm – and added that the lawlessness in the West Bank is profoundly troubling.

That experience matters because a nervous refrain has been growing louder among Israeli and American Jews: support for Israel in the United States is not merely ebbing; it is undergoing a historic realignment, and no one should assume it will reverse on its own. The evidence is no longer anecdotal. Recent Senate votes seeking to block specific arms sales to Israel, Pew findings showing increasingly negative views of Israel’s government, and Gallup data showing Americans’ plummeting favorable views of Israel and rising sympathy for Palestinians, especially among young Americans, all point to a tectonic shift. The old bipartisan cushion around Israel is thinning.

The shift is changing what it means to be pro-Israel in America. It is also making it far harder to inhabit the space between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and J Street. For decades, those two organizations have served as shorthand for two instincts that many American Jews once held together: a deep commitment to Israel’s security and a conviction that Israel’s long-term security depends on democracy, diplomacy, and a credible political horizon for Palestinians. For many people, that was not a contradiction. It was the essence of responsible Zionism.

That middle ground still exists intellectually. Politically, it is becoming much harder to occupy.

Part of the reason is simple: American public sentiment has changed, and political organizations respond to incentives. When a large and growing share of the electorate distrusts Israel’s conduct, lawmakers and advocacy groups sharpen their messages. Donors treat contributions as signals. Activists demand clarity. Politicians hear that mixed positions are not thoughtful but evasive. In that environment, institutional brands harden. AIPAC’s security-first message becomes more emphatic. J Street’s insistence on accountability becomes more urgent. The space between them becomes more perilous.

A deeper reason is that the US-Israel alliance is no longer judged solely by what happens in joint command centers, intelligence briefings, or on battlefields. Tactical cooperation, however real and important, does not immunize Israel from scrutiny when its domestic politics and wartime conduct are seen as raising moral or strategic questions. Judicial reforms pursued without broad consensus, extremist settler violence in the West Bank, inflammatory rhetoric from senior Israeli officials, and a failure to articulate a post-war plan for Gaza have not gone unnoticed by many Americans. When those issues accumulate, sympathy erodes, and nuance evaporates.

Support for Israel is being reshaped

The problem is exacerbated by a political culture that prizes binary narratives. Presidents are cast as either “loyal friends” or “betrayers” based on episodic policy choices. An ally who once received unconditional praise can be labeled hostile in the quick wake of a disagreement. Social media accelerates this polarization, rewarding clear, uncompromising takes and punishing complexity.

Israel is either an apartheid genocidal state, or it can do no wrong. The result is that the political currency of being a bridge-builder has depreciated. Attempting to straddle both AIPAC’s concern for Israeli security and J Street’s insistence on democratic accountability invites attacks from both camps and diminishes one’s ability to influence either.

This is not only an American problem. It is also a failure of Israeli strategy. Too often, Israelis ascribe declining US support to external problems – antisemitism, a generational turn – rather than as warning signs of how Israeli actions are being read. That’s a dangerous intellectual posture. If you cared about preserving the alliance, you would discipline public messaging, curb extremist violence decisively, muzzle incendiary rhetoric, and articulate a coherent political vision for Gaza and the future. You would recognize that strategic success requires both battlefield competence and diplomatic literacy. Decisions made in Jerusalem play out in American living rooms and congressional corridors.

So can AIPAC and J Street coexist? In communal life, yes. They must. Quiet, behind-the-scenes bridge-building still matters – working on pressing communal concerns, fighting antisemitism, ensuring Jewish student safety – but the era in which a visible public figure could reliably represent both camps is ending.

Leaders in Israel and the American Jewish community must reckon with that truth. If the alliance is to survive and thrive, it will require more than military might; it will require a sober rethinking of strategy, messaging, and moral clarity. The middle ground is inherently noble, but nuance is valuable – as long as it is coupled with discipline and credibility. The question for Israelis and American Jews who care about the future of the alliance is no longer, “Can you be both AIPAC and J Street?” It is: “Are we willing to change our behavior so that ample space for common cause remains?”

If the answer is yes, the work must start now – in Jerusalem as much as in Washington. We need more conversation between Bret Stephens and Jeremy Ben-Ami.

Published in the Jerusalem Post

The post Can AIPAC and J Street coexist? The shrinking middle ground in US-Israel support first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

This week, Jerusalem hosts the second “International Conference on Combating Antisemitism, Generation of Truth.” The program bills the conference as a serious reflection on the sources of contemporary antisemitism and the responsibilities of democratic states. This makes one issue impossible to ignore: Israel’s long-standing courtship of Europe’s radical right under Benjamin Netanyahu.

For more than a decade, Netanyahu has treated alliances with European far-right populist and radical Eurosceptic actors as strategic assets. The logic is transactional. These parties defend Israel in European institutions, mute criticism of Israeli policy, and sometimes even break with official European positions on Jerusalem or the settlements. In return, Israel grants them political legitimacy and treats their professions of friendship as proof of moral rehabilitation.

After October 7, 2023, this approach is not merely controversial. It is actively dangerous. Europe is experiencing a sustained rise in antisemitism. Jewish communities across the continent report growing fear, harassment, and violence, alongside the normalization of conspiratorial and exclusionary political language. In this climate, strengthening illiberal political forces does not protect Jews. On the contrary, it reinforces political styles that thrive on identifying enemies within and that have historically turned against minorities once circumstances shift. Even when today’s far-right claims to stand with Israel, the political ecosystems it nurtures remain deeply corrosive for Jewish life in Europe.

At the same time, Israel is paying a strategic price that goes far beyond the symbolic. Europe is Israel’s largest trade partner, accounting for the lion’s share of Israeli exports, imports, investment flows, and technological cooperation. More importantly, Europe is central to Israel’s scientific and innovation architecture. Israeli universities, startups, and research institutes are deeply embedded in European networks of funding, peer review, and collaboration.

These networks are already under strain. The scientific and academic boycott of Israel is no longer a theoretical threat. To varying degrees, it already exists. European universities and research bodies have delayed, limited, or quietly withdrawn from cooperation with Israeli partners. Individual researchers face tacit exclusion from consortia, conferences, and joint projects. These decisions often occur below the governmental level, making them harder to contest and easier to normalize.

The debate around “Horizon Europe” – the European Union’s key funding program for research and innovation – brings this danger into sharp relief. In mid-2025, the European Commission proposed a partial suspension of Israel’s participation in certain parts of the program, particularly those related to the European Innovation Council Accelerator. Even when such measures are narrowed or stalled, the signal is unmistakable. Israel’s position inside Europe’s flagship research framework can no longer be taken for granted.

This is where Netanyahu’s embrace of Europe’s radical right becomes strategically self-defeating. While it may generate tactical support from a handful of governments, it accelerates Israel’s alienation from the European mainstream that actually shapes research cooperation: universities, funding agencies, professional associations, and civil society. These actors are far less impressed by symbolic alliances with illiberal leaders and far more sensitive to questions of democratic norms, academic freedom, and international legitimacy.

A conference in Jerusalem dedicated to combating antisemitism should confront this contradiction honestly. If Israel seeks genuine solidarity with European Jews and wants to preserve its place at the heart of Europe’s economic and scientific future, it must rethink alliances that trade short-term political cover for long-term isolation. In the post-October 7 world, this is not only a moral reckoning. It is a question of Israel’s national interest, and the cost of getting it wrong is already being paid.

Published in the Jerusalem Post

The post The perils of Israel’s courtship of Europe’s far Right first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

The antisemitic attack in Australia on the first night of Chanukah dominated the international news cycle for a day or two, with pictures and reports about the horrific event and the Jewish community there. Indeed, Jewish life around the globe is becoming increasingly complex and challenging, even in ordinary times.

Despite this, the Israeli public and its elected leaders have limited interest in Diaspora Jewry beyond moments of acute crisis. They care far less when the emergency fades. Yet the essential meaning of a Jewish state carries a responsibility toward Jews in the Diaspora—a sense of brotherhood that persists through the “routine of war” of the past two years, as well as in the routine of normal life.

Almost immediately after the initial shock of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and through the multifront war that followed, Jews around the world have stood by Israel in every conceivable way. That includes political backing, unprecedented economic support and large demonstrations of moral support on city streets that continue to this day. This Jewish solidarity with Israel did not begin two years ago. It pre-dates 1948 and has endured through the establishment of the state, waves of immigration and periods of descent. Jewish support for Israel has been significant and continuous. For more than half a century, polls have consistently shown that Diaspora Jews care deeply about Israel.

In Israel, however, attitudes toward the Diaspora are markedly different. While awareness and concern for Jews outside of Israel have arguably improved since the war began, they remain limited. The spectrum of Israeli sentiment ranges from vague awareness to indifference, and at times, resentment and hostility, primarily on the right, regarding the political leanings of Diaspora Jews.

This disparity is also reflected in state policy. The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, responsible for the bond with world Jewry and the fight against global antisemitism, operates on a shoestring budget relative to the magnitude of the challenges. Israel’s overall investment in the Diaspora is negligible. Recent budget data indicates that it stands at merely 0.14% of the total state budget. Although this small amount is significant, in relation to the needs of Diaspora Jews and its overall share of the national budget, it is a lamentably insufficient investment.

The two years that have passed since the war began have been the most challenging in the history of the State of Israel. But they have also been the most daunting and dangerous two years for Diaspora Jews since the Holocaust. Questions of identity and rising antisemitism have turned Jewish existence abroad into an ever-present struggle.

What is happening in Gaza and along Israel’s other borders, coupled with the cascading International criticism it has been dealt, has had a direct impact on the personal safety of Jews worldwide. In Europe, but also in places once considered entirely safe, like the United States and Australia, the war has plunged young Jews into an identity crisis. In some cases, it has strengthened their identification with Israel; in others, it has had the opposite effect. The Jewish establishment in these countries is, of course, working to cope with these challenges; however, this scale of crisis demands state-level assistance from Israel.

Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. By virtue of its moral duty, the text of its Declaration of Independence and the constitutional commitment it took upon itself within the framework of the 2018 Nation-State Law, it must act on behalf of Jews in the Diaspora in times of crisis, but in routine times as well. Even amid its own ongoing crisis and despite the inherent difficulties involved, Israel cannot afford to forget this role.

Standing by the Jews of the Diaspora—just as they stand by us—means investing more and doing more. The fight against antisemitism is one component. But Israel must also invest in Jewish education, Jewish identity and Zionism, especially in places with limited local resources. Israel’s leaders must reach out to the Jews in the Diaspora. Since the war began, they have shown Israelis—through solidarity visits and various kinds of spiritual and material assistance—how much they care about and identify with us.

We Israelis, both leaders and citizens, need to convey to them as much as possible and with a willingness to make a real investment that we see them. That we care. That we are one people.

First published in JNS

The post Diaspora Jews: Brothers and sisters in routine, not just in crisis first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

France, like most Western European countries, is in the midst of a deep demographic and cultural transformation. Jews have become a small and visible minority, while citizens of Muslim origin are 20 times more numerous — and in some regions 50 times more. Although ethnic statistics are forbidden by law, indirect data is unequivocal: 23% of babies in France today bear Arabic-Muslim names, and one out of every four young people — 25% under the age of 35 — fasts during the month of Ramadan.

This is not a superficial change but a true demographic revolution. As the demographer Alfred Sauvy said: “Demography is the small hand of the clock — you do not see it move, but it is the one that tells the time.”

Research shows that 28% of Muslims in France support the establishment of an Islamic state, and this rate soars to almost 50% among those under 30. The deeper the religious faith, the stronger the hatred toward Jews. Contrary to the republican belief that education leads to integration, it turns out that it is precisely those with higher education who tend more toward political and religious zealotry. The universities, once engines of universalism, have become hotbeds of religious identity and anti-Israel progressivism. Anti-Zionism has become the legitimate language of a new antisemitism.

The Jewish community in France — one of the most vibrant in Europe — has become fragile and isolated in recent years. After the French Revolution and emancipation, each generation grew more distant from Judaism and community life. Yet paradoxically, from the start of this century, following exclusion and antisemitism, many have returned to synagogues, to community, and to identity. Between 80,000 and 100,000 Jews have left France since 2000 — more than 20% of the community. Some have emigrated to Israel, while others have moved to Canada, the United States, and Britain. But the remaining majority has encapsulated itself in insular ghettos — private schools, protected neighborhoods, autonomous communities. This is a process of survival, not one of free choice.

The police and judicial system move sluggishly, and politicians are bound by a cold demographic calculation: Muslim voters significantly influence elections. Strasbourg, Bordeaux, and Grenoble froze their twin-city alliances with Ramat Gan, Ashdod, and other Israeli cities, replacing them with partnerships with Arab villages in Judea, Samaria, and even Gaza. Seemingly a diplomatic gesture, but in practice, an electoral surrender.

Demography dictates the limits of public courage. The minority of today becomes the majority of tomorrow, and the majority of tomorrow reshapes the moral boundaries of today. When Theodor Herzl wrote The Jewish State, 80% of the world’s Jews lived in Eastern Europe — a vanished world. After them came the Jews of Islamic countries, who were forced to flee between 1948 and 1975, and the Jews of the former Soviet Union after the fall of communism. Now it is the turn of Western European Jews: they too face a historic decision.

The process of Kibbutz Galuyot (ingathering the exiles) that began a century ago has ripened before our eyes. It would be tragic if we failed to recognize the moment and turn this opportunity for redemption into a full historical process. Politicians and journalists ask: Why are they waiting to pack their suitcases? Don’t they see the writing on the wall? Some are indeed in denial, but most — in both England and France, and possibly soon the United States — understand that their grandchildren, and perhaps even their children, will not continue to live in their native lands.

But the problem is not only theirs — it is mainly ours. Israel loves aliyah but does not love olim. There is no real political will today to remove barriers. We are used to the model of aliyah out of distress — immigrants with little choice. They come out of compulsion, not out of opportunity; therefore, the state feels no need to ease their way — they will come even at the price of their dignity and social status.

But for Western Jews, reality is different. We saw this in South Africa: a Zionist, educated community with a solid Jewish identity which, at the moment of trial — despite its strong desire — mostly chose to emigrate to Australia, England, and the United States. Israel lost a strong, educated, and productive potential population — and did not learn the lesson. The State of Israel has proven in the past its ability to rescue Jews in distress — from Yemen and Ethiopia, from Argentina and the former Soviet Union — but struggles to absorb prosperous Jewry. Immigrants from Western countries are not refugees; they are educated professionals seeking meaning, identity, and partnership. The current absorption mechanism is slow, bureaucratic, and devoid of vision.We missed the wave of aliyah from South Africa — a Zionist, educated, and strong community that chose the United States, Australia, and Britain. Israel did not update its absorption program in time.

Professional guilds operating in Israel protect themselves from external competition. The interests of these groups — doctors, engineers, lawyers — clash with the overall national interest. This is a market failure that demands direct state intervention.

Urgent reforms are required:

Temporary work permits for certified medical and para-medical professionals from abroad.

Intensive Hebrew and training programs for teachers, psychologists, and service professionals.

Targeted recruitment and training programs in essential sectors of the Israeli economy, especially for academics dependent on their native language.

Automatic recognition of Western academic degrees, unless proven otherwise.

Immigrants from the West bring not only knowledge and talent but also a deep liberal ethos — faith in the rule of law, individual rights, and civic responsibility, rooted in Jewish tradition. Their presence can strengthen Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, where freedom and faith do not contradict but enrich one another.

The precedent already exists: the Russian aliyah of the 1990s created an economic and cultural revolution. A new Western aliyah could do the same — on a broader scale and with renewed energy.

Aliyah is not a burden — it is a national opportunity. To realize it, a governmental inter-ministerial directorate should be established within the Prime Minister’s Office, uniting all bodies — absorption, education, employment, health, and housing — headed by an executive figure with authority and courage. Of course, employment is the key. But beyond work, for Western immigrants who truly have alternatives to migrate elsewhere, Jewish identity, and the social and educational integration of their children are the main motives. Many of them know that their careers will suffer from the move to Israel and are ready to be the “desert generation” for their children’s sake. They ask for only one thing — that their children succeed in integrating, learn Hebrew, and feel at home among their people.

Israel knows how to turn disaster into redemption. If it opens its gates, it can turn the crisis of European Jewry into the next Israeli miracle — not a miracle of rescue alone, but a miracle of national revival, a renewed realization of the vision of Kibbutz Galuyot.

Published by Jerusalem Post

The post Can Israel bring in 1 million new immigrants from the West? first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

“What can be done to help young American Jews who identify as Zionists support Israel’s right to exist, and these days risk social exclusion or even losing their livelihood? Young people in the fields of art and humanities, for example, who encounter closed doors if they refuse to renounce Israel?”

This uneasy question was recently raised to me by a Jewish American mother who has supported Israel for many years, financially and publicly. A worried mother. Since the hunger crisis in the Gaza Strip has worsened and the harsh criticism of Israel grew around the world this past summer, as Israel slowly becomes an international pariah, one can detect a new reaction in conversations with Jews who support Israel and want its success — embarrassment.

Embarrassment at the ongoing war, embarrassment at the absence of a horizon for a deal to return the hostages (a cause to which American Jewry is still astonishingly devoted), embarrassment at their inability to explain outwardly to their surroundings (sometimes hostile) what Israel’s strategy is, when inwardly, they themselves do not understand it.

To remove any doubt, this is not a progressive audience suffering from “Wokeism” and identifying with campus protests, but rather the circles most devoted to Israel after October 7 — Jews who contribute money, time and public support to Israel. They did not hesitate to stand with us even in the face of the wave of anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism that has intensified over the past two years, and has deeply affected their lives and the lives of their children. They did not shirk responsibility; on the contrary, the “Jews of October 8” have discovered that their Jewish identity had strengthened. And for many of them, the connection to Israel became deeper.

The futility of the current situation regarding the war, the government’s inability to present to Israelis — and to the world — a long-term strategy and clear objectives, is leading the Jewish community in the U.S. into a growing crisis. Some 92% of American Jews believe that recent developments in the war increase the sense of insecurity of Jews in various countries, and harm the internal unity of the Jewish communities themselves. Three-quarters of them are concerned that Israel could become a pariah in Western countries (according to the Voice of the Jewish People index of the Jewish People Policy Institute, JPPI).

Should Israel navigate its military actions based on their impact on Diaspora Jewry? The Israeli government is, first and foremost, expected to be devoted to the security and welfare of its own citizens. However, when the Cabinet sits down to decide on the next steps of the war, it is expected to conduct a thorough, serious and wide-ranging discussion of all consequences; the impact of the war on Jews in America, or Europe, must be part of this complex puzzle. Not just symbolically, but substantively.

The more Israel’s name is tarnished internationally, the more it becomes a pariah state on the global stage – in a way that endangers its future and security – the worse the situation becomes for Diaspora Jews, especially those who maintain a bond with Israel.

Even those who do not believe that the Diaspora should be considered when making substantive decisions in the Gaza war must at the very least take into account the dangerous impact of extreme, irresponsible (or immoral) statements made by members of the Knesset and coalition ministers – which are quoted around the world; statements that further worsen the situation and security of Jews in the Diaspora. These statements have no connection to the management of the war or its success — likely the opposite.

Jewish communities that have supported Israel during one of the most difficult periods in its history deserve greater attention from the State of Israel — a state they still see as a second home.

Published on Ynet

The post Embarrassed, isolated, still loyal: The dilemma of young American Zionists first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) on Tuesday released the Voice of the Jewish People Index for August, revealing deep concern among American Jews about the impact of Israel’s actions in Gaza on Jewish communities worldwide.

The index found that 75% of American Jews are worried that Israel may become a pariah state in Western countries — a higher level of concern than among Israeli Jews (62%).

A recent letter by Jewish leaders to Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that Israel’s policies in Gaza not only affect Israel’s standing, but also reverberate throughout Diaspora communities.

In addition, 92% of respondents in the JPPI survey agreed that Israel’s actions have direct implications for Jews abroad. However, opinion is split: 47% say Israel must consider the impact of its actions in Gaza on Diaspora Jews, while 45% say Israel should focus solely on military victory, regardless of Diaspora concerns.

Nearly half of US Jews conceal their Jewish identity at times when in unfamiliar environments (42% sometimes, 9% always). In contrast, most haredi Jews said they never hide their identity (53% never, 18% rarely travel).

Looking ahead to the High Holidays, 53% plan to attend services more than once, while 18% will attend at least once.

When asked about the war against Hamas in Gaza, 47% say Israel had no choice but to launch a military operation to take Gaza and cannot allow Hamas to remain in power. At the same time, 34% believe Israel is making a mistake, arguing there are better ways to achieve its goals. Just 10% say Israel should stop the war, even if Hamas remains in power.

Voting preferences, however, reveal sharp divisions: 85% of Jewish Trump voters back Israel’s decision, but only 26% of Jewish Harris voters agree. Half of Harris voters (49%) believe Israel is making a mistake.

Just under a third (32%) of US Jews feel Israel is “winning or has won” the war, compared to 48% of Israeli Jews. Conversely, 37% of US Jews and 30% of Israeli Jews do not feel Israel is winning.

JPPI President Prof. Yedidia Stern commented: “The survey shows that the way the war is being conducted directly and significantly impacts Diaspora Jews’ sense of security in their own homes. Nearly half of them expect the State of Israel to take this into account, but in practice, this voice is not represented in Israel’s decision-making processes.”

“The Nation-State Law stipulates that ‘the state shall strive to ensure the safety of members of the Jewish people … who are in distress or captivity because of their Judaism.’ This commitment must be given practical meaning by institutionalizing an internal Israeli mechanism to highlight the safety concerns of Diaspora Jews wherever critical decisions are made that could affect their fate.”

Published on Arutz Sheva

The post JPPI Survey: American Jews Believe Israel’s Actions in Gaza Have Direct Consequences for Them first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

By: Dr. Ghila Amati, Shlomi Bereznik

The post STUDY: AMERICAN SERMONS & ISRAELI POLITICS first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

At the Jewish school our children attend, every morning begins by counting the number of days the hostages have been in captivity, and with prayers for their safety. The school’s entrance is festooned with yellow ribbons and a placard expressing hope for their return. On Shabbat, Jewish synagogues across America recite prayers for their release.

Boulder, Colorado – where eight Jews were wounded this weekend in a shocking terrorist attack – is not alone. In countless cities and towns, people march weekly for the hostages, calling for their swift release. In Israel, politicians have deliberately turned the struggle for the hostages into the fodder of polarization and controversy, but Jews across the United States – across streams – are showing unwavering support for the cause and discovering that their connection to Israel runs deeper than they had known or imagined before October 7.

From time to time, I ask myself how well we Israelis understand the depth of our connection to our brothers and sisters in North America. Are we sufficiently grateful for the extraordinary mobilization of so many of them on our behalf – through donations, leadership delegations who have come to Israel continuously under rocket fire, or individuals volunteering in hospitals and agricultural fields amid war? Are we aware of their efforts to influence American public opinion and politicians on Capitol Hill? And do we feel responsible for the fact that, in the end, they are paying a price for their connection to Israel?

The root cause is the ancient antisemitism that rears its head in every generation under a different guise. Still, we Israelis must recognize that every escalation or deterioration in our small patch of land inevitably spills over and affects Jews overseas. While looking for support, partnership, and aid from their non-Jewish allies, American Jews found themselves surprisingly alone.

They had always been there, standing up for the struggles of other minorities – African Americans, women, the LGBTQ community, immigrants – from the days when Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama, to the social justice movements of the 21st century. Yet, in the last 600 days, they far too often have felt deeply alone. And not just on university campuses.

In the aftermath of October 7, their confidence was shaken – not only in the invincibility of the State of Israel, the distant mother ship, but also in feeling entirely at home and at ease as Jews in America, something most had never felt before. For more than half a century – the golden age of American Jewry – Jews were an integral part of the American dream: its culture, economy, academia and politics. Considered one of the most successful immigrant groups in American history, there is no professional path in which one doesn’t disproportionately encounter Jews. But they have discovered, as the popular podcaster Dan Senor recently described it in an important speech, that they are prominent but weak: serving in key positions, yet lacking power.

Conversations with community leaders reveal a similar analysis. The current wave of antisemitism does not stem primarily from an alarming rise in the number of antisemites – right or left. But they have found each other on social media, and in doing so have managed to move from the margins to a more central place in public discourse. With increased visibility, their audacity grows, and unlike in the past, they now have a dangerous capacity to sway others online.

Another change is that, until recently, the conventional wisdom was that left-wing antisemitism was expressed in hateful rhetoric at loud campus protests and, at worst, through vandalism, while right-wing antisemitism resulted in deadly terrorist attacks like the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. The two most recent terror attacks have shattered that equation. The fear of violence and terror now comes from both ends of the political spectrum.

The murder of two embassy employees near the Jewish Museum in Washington, and the Colorado attack on Jews marching for the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza, have deepened the fear and the loneliness that befell the American Jewish community after October 7. For some, their Jewish identity, which was stirred awake on October 8, led them to proudly wear their Stars of David, pins and tags in solidarity with the hostages. Now, that pride is accompanied by the all-too-real fear of physical harm. Our moral obligation as Israelis is to stand by them, just as they stood by us – first and foremost, so that they will know, and feel, that they are not alone.

Ynet

The post US Jews have stood up for Israel, now it is time to have their backs first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.