Archive | February 2026

Mamdani and the collapse of ‘liberal Zionism’


Mamdani and the collapse of ‘liberal Zionism’

Jonathan S. Tobin


Members of his administration can’t protect New York Jewry while working for a mayor who opposes Israel’s existence and defends antisemites.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani hosts the first annual Interfaith Breakfast of his administration at the New York Public Library, Feb. 6, 2026. Credit: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.

When former New York City Mayor Eric Adams created an Office to Combat Antisemitism last May, it was widely interpreted as a political gesture intended to boost his failing independent run for re-election in November. Adams had always been broadly supportive of Israel and the wider Jewish community. But his move was too little and too late—both to do much about the surge of antisemitism that followed the Hamas-led Palestinian Arab terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and to save his mayoral campaign.

Adams dropped out of the race in September, six weeks before Zohran Mamdani was elected to succeed him. Mamdani, an avowed opponent of the existence of the State of Israel and a supporter of the pro-Hamas mobs who were the shock troops of the wave of Jew-hatred that swept across the country, hasn’t abolished Adams’s pet project. Similar to his predecessor, the motive for this is political. While Adams used it to signal his somewhat ineffectual support for the Jewish people, Mamdani seeks to employ it to provide cover for the fact that he is still doubling down on his anti-Zionism and efforts to link that noxious cause to other items on his agenda, such as opposing the Trump administration’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration.

To do this, he has appointed Phylisa Wisdom, a veteran left-wing activist, to lead it.

Serving an antisemite 

Wisdom’s main qualifications seem to consist of a worldview that is sympathetic to Mamdani’s political program—with one exception. According to The New York Times, she is a “liberal Zionist,” which the paper seems to define as someone who has “criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza” while still believing in “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.”

New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch is the one holdover from the former administration who seems to be motivated by a real desire to hold the line against Jew-hatred in law enforcement, as well as to possibly further her personal future political ambitions. But Wisdom’s post isn’t nearly as important as the one that controls the police. Like the situation last year, it’s far from clear what, if anything, it can do about the epidemic of antisemitism in New York, highlighted by the fact that hate crimes against Jews rose a staggering 182% in Mamdani’s first month in office.

This is hardly surprising. Avowals notwithstanding, Mamdani’s ardent anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from antisemitism since he denies Jews rights that neither he nor anyone else would think of denying to any other people.

What Phylisa Wisdom stands for

Wisdom’s significance, therefore, comes not from how much she can contribute to the effort to reverse that trend, but how it symbolizes what has happened to the idea of “liberal Zionism” in the 21st century. If acting and speaking as she has done is what it means to be a liberal Zionist today, then a real disconnect exists. It’s not merely time to realize that the phrase has lost its original meaning; instead, we must understand that those who have appropriated that label are neither Zionist nor authentically liberal.

In theory, those who identify as political liberals have an important role to play in rallying support for Israel and Zionism within the Jewish community and the non-Jewish world. Adherence to liberalism—whether in the form of the classical school of political thought that prized individual liberty above all, or even just as a label that most members of the Democratic Party applied to themselves—can be entirely compatible with Zionism. Indeed, for most of the history of the modern Zionist movement, the natural affinity between liberal economic and political ideas and the effort to facilitate the self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancient homeland was patently obvious.

But as Wisdom has demonstrated in the course of her career, in practice being an avowed “liberal Zionist” means acting as an ally of those working to undermine and even destroy the Jewish state, whose existence she says she supports. At the same time, she is also aiding a cause that is fundamentally illiberal.

Let’s start by noting that claiming to be a supporter of Israel and an opponent of antisemitism while serving in a Mamdani administration represents a contradiction in terms. There may be some who say that it is important for the Jewish community to have a voice among the mayor’s advisers. But this is no ordinary mayor of New York. The 34-year-old chief executive of Gotham is someone whose entire brief political career has revolved around his obsessive opposition to Israel’s existence and Jewish rights.

Even if we assume that someone like Tisch is sincere in her desire to steer the city’s government in a way that will help protect Jews, it’s already apparent that she’s deceiving herself. Whatever checks she or someone in Wisdom’s office can try to put on the mayor’s ideological fixation about Israel and Jewish life will be outweighed by the way the mayor’s rhetoric and actions are legitimizing and mainstreaming Jew-hatred.

Though Mamdani may disingenuously pledge his desire to protect Jews, even his half-hearted statements about protecting synagogues from pro-Hamas mobs send the message that he is on the side of the attackers. Those who think they can influence him or somehow lessen the harm he will cause by serving him are deceiving themselves. To collaborate with Mamdani in any way is to commit to compromising one’s own morality far more than it could ever influence him.

Supporting blood libels

Still, it is just as important to look at Wisdom’s stands and ponder whether they are in any way compatible with a traditional definition of liberal Zionism.

A glance through Wisdom’s social-media posts, a litany of her political stands or those of the New York Jewish Agenda (NYJA) group that she has led since July 2023, reveals someone who is most interested in bashing Israel, in addition to providing aid and comfort to those who seek to take it down. Indeed, the main point of that group is to provide a platform for the “as a Jew” version of modern Jewish life. That is an all-too-common trend. It is a means to comment about Israel by using one’s Jewish identity to legitimize arguments seeking to treat virtually any effort to defend it as illegitimate or a crime.

The position of NYJA is indistinguishable from that of J Street, which started out claiming to be both “pro-Israel and pro-peace.” In practice, the group became a mouthpiece for those who were determined to impose suicidal concessions to the Palestinians that had been repeatedly rejected by the Israeli people. In the wake of Oct. 7, J Street and NYJA ultimately found themselves mainly acting to support the efforts of those who sought to prevent Israel from attacking Hamas and Iran, and thus to ensure the victory of the terrorists.

Worse than that, they were guilty of lending credibility to the blood libels about Israeli conduct that have been fueling antisemitism. In particular, Wisdom and NYJA repeatedly weighed in to support the false claims that Israel was deliberately causing starvation in Gaza, and in doing so, claimed that the Jewish state was morally equivalent to Hamas. That she did so while claiming to uphold Jewish values is no defense for this immoral and destructive stance.

In this context, her assertion that she supports Israel’s “right to exist” (something that only among all the nations in the world is considered controversial when applied to the Jewish state) is merely a way to justify opposing anything done to defend it from those who are waging a genocidal war to destroy it.

Equally helpful to understanding just how little her positions have to do with liberalism or Zionism is her consistent opposition to the Trump administration’s efforts to combat bigotry against students on college campuses. Wisdom opposed the federal government’s attempts to hold institutions like Columbia University on Manhattan’s Upper West Side accountable for their toleration and encouragement of Jew-hatred, which clearly violates the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. Beyond that, she took up the cause to defend Mahmoud Khalil, a foreign student who was one of the chief organizers of the pro-Hamas demonstrations that targeted Jews at the Ivy League school for intimidation and violence, when the administration sought to deport him for violating the terms of his visa.

Like Mamdani, Khalil isn’t merely “pro-Palestinian.” He is an active supporter of the campaign to destroy Israel and has a long record of working for anti-Israel groups like the U.N. Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA. But to Wisdom, his antisemitic record and actions were not as important as the imperative to oppose Trump and back his anti-Israeli opponents.

While Wisdom and others on the left claim that this position is a defense of individuals against a repressive state authority, it puts them in the position of bolstering illiberal figures like Khalil, who support the most reactionary and repressive Islamist groups. In this manner, too many contemporary liberals have allowed themselves to be convinced to support racialist theories that undermine the defense of Western civilization and help bolster the war against Jews that Islamists seek to spread.

Illiberal Islamist imagery

Mamdani’s use of Islamist imagery in his efforts to oppose Trump’s willingness to enforce existing immigration laws ought to trouble genuine liberals. The mayor claimed that the Islamic principles and history he invoked were also a reason to support open borders policies in the contemporary United States. But they actually helped form the prelude for Muslim campaigns to persecute Jews during that religion’s conquest of the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East.

A true liberal Zionist might disagree with President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on many issues. Yet they would support Israel’s war on Hamas and oppose the importation of Islamist radicalism into the United States.

There are still many such liberal Zionists. Still, they have allowed leftists like Wisdom to hijack that term and marginalize supporters of Israel on the political left. This is a liberalism that not only won’t support Israel, but is determined to disarm those who seek to defend America against toxic Marxist ideas that single out Jews as “white” oppressors. The rise of Mamdani to political power is a function of the way these leftist ideologues have turned the Democratic Party into a haven for anti-Zionists and those who are enabling the surge of antisemitism.

That such a person has been put into a position where their job is to defend Jews against hatred isn’t merely ironic. It’s a logical conclusion to a process by which liberalism has been subverted by those who oppose its basic precepts that are the foundation of Jewish security. We should treat Wisdom’s elevation to this role as not so much inappropriate but as a parody of efforts to combat antisemitism.

More than that, it should be a wake-up call to those liberal supporters of Israel to begin to fight in earnest against the forces that have swept to control of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives are also fighting to fend off antisemites on the right, but there is no question that such figures remain a minority, and that, at present, it is only the Trump administration and its supporters who are actively fighting antisemitism in the United States. If Jewish liberals aren’t prepared to resist Mamdani and his Jewish collaborators, like Wisdom, then they should stop calling themselves liberal Zionists and concede that the idea has become obsolete.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Anti-Israel activist leads former congressman, shunned by AIPAC, in NJ special primary


Anti-Israel activist leads former congressman, shunned by AIPAC, in NJ special primary

Jonathan D. Salant


AIPAC’s super PAC spent $2.3 million against Tom Malinowski, but now a progressive Democrat, who has accused Israel of genocide, may win the congressional seat.

Then New Jersey congressman Tom Malinowski at a press conference on Sept. 1, 2022. Credit: N.J. Governor’s office.

Analilia Mejia, a progressive activist backed by some of Israel’s fiercest critics in Congress, holds a narrow lead for the Democratic nomination for a vacant U.S. House seat in New Jersey against former congressman Tom Malinowski. 

On Friday afternoon, Mejia had 18,058 votes (28.9%) and Malinowski 17,382 votes (27.8%) in the special primary in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District.

Given the district’s strong blue hue, the winner of the Democratic primary will be a strong favorite to win the April 16 special election against Joe Hathaway, a Republican, to succeed Democrat Mikie Sherrill, who resigned her congressional seat when she was elected New Jersey governor last November. 

In the past, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has supported Malinowski, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state and two-term congressman, who led throughout the night until Mejia moved ahead and remained there with 93% of the vote counted as of Friday afternoon. 

This time around, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project spent $2.3 million against the frontrunner, who has a history of defending the Jewish state, in negative ads, phone calls and mailings.

Mejia has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, promised not to take an AIPAC-funded trip to Israel and received endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)

J Street endorsed Malinowski this time, and Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for the AIPAC super PAC, told JNS last month that there were “several candidates in this race that are far more supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship than Tom Malinowski.”

Malinowski told JNS last month that he refused to commit to supporting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 100%.

“I’m in the mainstream of both the Democratic Party and of the Jewish community in strongly supporting Israel and its right to defend itself while being critical of some of the policies of the Netanyahu government,” Malinowski said at the time. 

“If AIPAC’s definition of pro-Israel excludes someone like me, there will not be enough pro-Israel people left in America to support an alliance for Israel,” he told JNS last month.

The co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Adam Green, attributed Mejia’s success to her positions on issues.

“Analilia Mejia’s momentous showing proves that voters, when given a choice, want Democrats with an inspiring vision who will boldly challenge powerful interests on behalf of working families,” Green stated. 

“This is the second big congressional primary in two weeks where voters chose the more progressive candidate and made clear they want Democrats who will shake up a broken political and economic system—not just be anti-Trump,” he said.



Brat szefa Szin Bet oskarżony o pomoc Hamasowi w czasie wojny

Palestyńczycy gromadzą się wokół ulicznych sprzedawców, aby kupić żywność i podstawowe produkty pośród ruin zniszczonych budynków w mieście Gaza. (Fot. Saeed M. M. T. Jaras/Anadolu via Getty Images)


Brat szefa Szin Bet oskarżony o pomoc Hamasowi w czasie wojny

Robert Stefanicki


Becalel Zini i jego wspólnicy w pojazdach wojskowych przemycali papierosy do objętej blokadą Strefy Gazy. Zarzuty postawiono w sumie 12 żołnierzom i cywilom.

Skandal jest tym większy, że starszy brat Becalela Ziniego, Dawid (ma rangę generała), od października jest szefem Szin Bet, krajowej agencji wywiadowczej. Oficer, uważany przez swoich poprzedników za niekompetentnego, ale lojalnego wobec premiera Izraela Benjamina Netanjahu, zasłynął opinią, że „system sądowniczy jest dyktaturą rządzącą Izraelem”.

Becalela Ziniego aresztowano dwa tygodnie temu pod zarzutem popełnienia przestępstw przeciwko bezpieczeństwu w związku z przemytem towarów, których wywóz do Strefy Gazy jest zabroniony. Wraz z nim aresztowano dwóch wspólników: Awiela Ben Davida i Amira Halperina.

Zgodnie z aktem oskarżenia, Zini sprzedał Palestyńczykom w sumie 7 tys. paczek papierosów w 14 kartonach, za które otrzymał 365 tys. szekli (około 420 tys. zł).

Może się to wydawać sumą nieprawdopodobną (wychodzi 60 zł za paczkę), ale trzeba jednak pamiętać, że podczas całkowitej blokady nałożonej przez Izrael w szczytowym okresie wojny ceny towarów konsumpcyjnych w enklawie osiągnęły kosmiczny poziom, a papierosy były luksusem dla nielicznych. Cena jednej sztuki przekraczała równowartość 50 zł, a karton mieszczący 500 paczek kosztował ponad pół miliona.

Halperin zarobił na przemycie 4,3 miliona szekli, z czego część została podzielona między oskarżonych, a Ben Dawid otrzymał 815 tys. szekli.

Obrońcy: To odwrócenie rzeczywistości

Oskarżonym i ich wspólnikom zarzuca się, że wiedzieli, iż „przemycane towary mogą trafić do organizacji terrorystycznych, w tym Hamasu lub jego przedstawicieli, i mogą służyć wzmocnieniu ich władzy, promowaniu i finansowaniu ich działalności”.

„Działali w celu osiągnięcia korzyści finansowych, w pełni świadomi, że w ten sposób omijają ograniczenia nałożone przez izraelskie prawo dotyczące wwozu towarów do Strefy Gazy w ramach działań wojennych, i to pomimo oczywistej szkody dla bezpieczeństwa państwa, wynikającej z ich działań” – podała prokuratura.

Prawnicy Ziniego stwierdzili, że prokuratura zdecydowała się prowadzić tę sprawę za pośrednictwem mediów, a nie sądów, o czym ma świadczyć to, że akt oskarżenia dotarł do nich już po tym, jak sprawa została nagłośniona.

Oskarżeni przyznali się do udziału w przemycie, ale poważniejsze zarzuty kontestują.

– Jeśli chodzi o zarzut pomagania wrogowi w czasie wojny, to jest to całkowite odwrócenie rzeczywistości – powiedzieli adwokaci Ziniego, opisując go jako człowieka, który “jest syjonistą w każdym calu, poświęcił wszystko i ryzykował życie dla państwa” – informuje gazeta “Haarec”.

Siły Uriasza i kontrabanda do Strefy Gazy

50-letni Zini formalnie jest rezerwistą armii izraelskiej, ale należy również do małej, półoficjalnej jednostki znanej jako Siły Uriasza (od imienia bohatera biblijnego), złożonej w dużej mierze z prawicowych ochotników-ekstremistów. Według śledztwa “Haareca” jednostka ta znajduje się poza strukturą dowodzenia izraelskich sił zbrojnych. Siły Uriasza podczas wojny pomagały burzyć tunele i budynki w Strefie Gazy.

W akcie oskarżenia zarzuca się Ziniemu wykorzystanie swojej pozycji (wojskowego) do przekroczenia granicy zamkniętej strefy wojskowej w celu popełnienia przestępstwa

Według prokuratury Awiel Ben David, podwładny Ziniego, zaproponował mu w sierpniu 2025 r. przemyt towarów do Strefy Gazy. Zini się zgodził. Za pierwszym razem w jego samochodzie umieszczono dwa kartony z 10 tys. sztuk papierosów. Ben David i Zini wjechali następnie tym pojazdem na teren Strefy Gazy, ubrani w mundury wojskowe. Rozładowali towar w punkcie zrzutu znanym jako „Brax”, przez który przejeżdżają ciężarówki dostarczające pomoc humanitarną Palestyńczykom. Następnie Ben David dotarł do Kirjat Gat, gdzie w zamian za towar otrzymał 30 tys. szekli, z czego połowę przekazał Ziniemu.

Następnym razem żołnierze powtórzyli manewr w dniu, gdy pojazdy inżynieryjne Sił Uriasza wracają do Izraela w celu przeprowadzenia prac konserwacyjnych. Na przejściu granicznym w Sufie Zini przekonał strażnika, że ich wjazd do Strefy Gazy jest konieczny. Udało im się wwieźć i sprzedać lokalnym handlarzom pięć kartonów papierosów.

Trzecia runda przemytu obejmowała siedem kartonów papierosów i dwa worki tytoniu.

Potem Zini powiedział Ben Davidowi, że jego przyjaciel służący w elitarnej Jednostce Wywiadu Wojskowego 8200, ostrzegł go, że mogą zostać złapani, ale zaoferował, że mógłby dopilnować, by ich dane nie pojawiły się w systemie. Ben David przekazał Ziniemu 100 tys. szekli na łapówkę.

“Zniżka dla celebrytów” dla brata szefa Szin Bet

Gdy służby dowiedziały się o przemytniczym procederze, zwołano pilne przesłuchanie z udziałem prokurator generalnej Gali Baharav-Miary i innych wysokich rangą urzędników. Postanowili oni odizolować szefa Szin Bet od sprawy i uniemożliwić tej agencji przesłuchanie jego brata. W rezultacie został on objęty śledztwem policyjnym, które jest uważane za łagodniejsze, i mógł spotykać się ze swoimi prawnikami. Pozostali podejrzani byli przesłuchiwani przez Szin Bet.

– [Zini] otrzymał zniżkę dla celebrytów ze względu na powiązania rodzinne – stwierdził prawnik jednego z nich.

Szef Szin Bet nie komentuje sprawy. Trzeci brat, Szmuel, powiedział, że wierzy w niewinność Becalela. Inny krewny oskarżonego zasugerował w rozmowie z „Haarecem”, że cała sprawa jest „próbą obalenia Dawida”.

W ramach powiązanego śledztwa izraelska prokuratura oskarżyła 12 osób, w tym rezerwistów, o przemyt do Strefy Gazy towarów o wartości milionów dolarów. Oprócz papierosów siatka przemycała także iPhone’y, baterie, części samochodowe.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Bondi visit leads Herzog’s Australia trip


Bondi visit leads Herzog’s Australia trip

JNS Staff


Israeli President Isaac Herzog began his visit at Bondi Beach, honoring the victims of December’s terrorist attack.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog and first lady Michal Herzog lay stones of remembrance brought from Jerusalem at Bondi Pavilion in Sydney, Australia, on Feb. 9, 2026. Photo by Maayan Toaf/GPO.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog began his visit to Australia on Monday at Bondi Beach, the scene of December’s antisemitic terrorist attack during a Chanukah celebration.

“On behalf of the State of Israel, I pay tribute to all 15 victims murdered in the deadliest terror attack in Australian history,” Herzog wrote on X following his visit to the popular beach town east of Sydney. “From here at Bondi, I embrace the bereaved families, pray for a speedy recovery for all those injured, and express my deepest gratitude to all those heroes who saved innocent lives under fire.”

“Standing here at Bondi—an iconic symbol of Australian life, now scarred by the December 14th massacre—I embrace our Australian Jewish sisters and brothers still reeling from this trauma,” the president continued. “I also reach out to the wonderful people of Australia who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Australian Jews in the aftermath of the attack.”

His visit, at the invitation of Governor-General Sam Mostyn, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Jewish community, includes meetings with senior officials and Jewish community leaders across the country.

First lady Michal Herzog is joining him on the five-day visit.

He is the first Israeli head of state to visit Australia since Reuven Rivlin in 2020. Herzog’s father, Chaim Herzog, also visited Australia as Israel’s president in 1986.

In a statement, Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said Herzog’s visit “will lift the spirits of a pained community.”

Anti-Israel activists held demonstrations in Sydney and Melbourne on Monday to protest Herzog’s visit.

“My visit to Australia, to all of you, is one of solidarity, strength and sincere friendship from the State of Israel and the people of Israel,” Herzog said. “Together, we must confront the evils of antisemitism, extremism and terror here in Australia and around the world.”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Holocaust Scholars Are ‘Part of the Genocide Problem,’ Says Anti-Israel Group Under Fire for Using Lemkin Name


Holocaust Scholars Are ‘Part of the Genocide Problem,’ Says Anti-Israel Group Under Fire for Using Lemkin Name

Atara Beck


Raphael Lemkin being interviewed on Feb. 13, 1949. Photo: Screenshot

The head of a stridently anti-Israel group has attacked dozens of prominent Holocaust scholars who called out the US-based nonprofit for “exploiting” the name of Raphael Lemkin — the Polish-born Jewish lawyer who survived the Holocaust and subsequently coined the term “genocide” — to “falsely accuse” Israel of genocide.

Following the attack, multiple members of the Lemkin family expressed to The Algemeiner their firm opposition to the organization’s using their relative’s name to pursue a campaign of anti-Israel activism.

In a recent LinkedIn post, Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, co-founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, denounced more than 100 distinguished scholars, including two former leaders of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, for supporting Joseph Lemkin. Lemkin — a relative of Raphael Lemkin, who helped draft the Genocide Convention after World War II and after whom the institute is named — is fighting to disassociate his cousin from the anti-Israel institution.

The Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, established in 2021, began accusing Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza just days after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, where Palestinian terrorists slaughtered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages in the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust.

The institute accused the Jewish state of genocide even before the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched its ground offensive in Gaza weeks later. It further promoted the position that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for war crimes. In September 2024, the group expressed skepticism about whether Hamas terrorists raped Israeli victims, despite widely available evidence showing rampant sexual violence, and it has since continued criticizing Israel.

“In recent months,” the institute “has veered into strident anti-Israel political advocacy, supporting anti-Israel campus protests and reaching millions of viewers with social media posts that falsely accuse Israel of genocide,” The Algemeiner reported on Nov. 13, 2024, first exposing the group’s activity and the Lemkin family’s opposition to it doing so under their name.

“Joseph Lemkin, a New Jersey lawyer who is related to Raphael Lemkin, said he was unfamiliar with the institute until being informed of it by The Algemeiner,” the report said.

That was when Joseph Lemkin became determined to remove his family name from the institute.

Most recently, more than 100 distinguished scholars, led by Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, based in Washington, DC, penned a letter to Lemkin, expressing support for his effort.

“As scholars who have written about the Holocaust or other genocides, we share your family’s concern about extremists exploiting Raphael Lemkin’s name to attack Israel,” said the letter, which was dated Jan. 25 but not publicized until Jan. 30. “We support your efforts to reclaim the legacy of Raphael Lemkin from those who are besmirching his ideals and goals.”

Days later, in response, von Joeden-Forgey discussed the “ridiculous letter” in a LinkedIn post. “It is always a pity to realize how much ugliness they [the letters’ cosigners] hid behind their ‘Holocaust & Genocide Studies’ façade,” she wrote on Feb. 2, adding that she was “disgusted” by them.

Raising six points, von Joeden-Forgey claimed:

1) The idea that Raphael Lemkin would support Israel’s actions is ridiculous and itself constitutes a disparagement of his work and memory.

2) There are family members who support our work, so Joseph Lemkin — the only family member we have heard of who does not — does not represent “the family” or “the name.”

3) There has never been a good faith effort on Joseph Lemkin’s part to reach out to us to discuss his concerns. This has been a political hit job from the beginning. We have offered to discuss the issue twice. He instead decided to pursue a possible legal action and, when he realized he had no legal standing, he resorted to defaming us to US elected officials, government agencies, and the right-wing press.

4) I would like to ask these “scholars” to let us all know what they have been doing to reduce Palestinian deaths from Israel’s “war” and, more broadly, to prevent genocide in our world, since they find our work so egregious.

5) These “scholars” should be truly ashamed for calling our institute “extremist” in a political environment where they well know the impact that word can and probably will have on the freedoms of the US-based members of this institute. I consider these “scholars” to be supporting the US government’s assault on constitutional rights, particularly the First Amendment. They are, in other words, part of the genocide problem not the solution. But, of course, they must know that, considering that they should have read all about how these things work.

6) Blind support for Israel’s actions is genocide denial.

 ‘A Complete Lie’

Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner that the family is supportive of his stand — “except for one lone wolf. He used to live in the United States, and now he criticizes the US and criticizes Israel and has sent me some nasty emails, but he has never come out in public on the issue as far as I know.”

“To the contrary,” he continued. “My brother, Benjamin, has spoken out publicly; my sister, Rachel Memeles, and all of our children as well as my mother, who was married to my father, Daniel Lemkin — Raphael Lemkin’s first cousin. They were born in the same town.”

“My father was a Holocaust survivor. His parents and three brothers were all killed in the Holocaust. Raphael had no descendants; he didn’t have children of his own.”

.
Raphael Lemkin’s grave, Mount Hebron Cemetery in Flushing, Queens, New York. Photo: Oberezny, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Joseph also adamantly rejected the claim that he never reached out to the institute to discuss his concerns.

“Beyond being a complete lie, we have reached out through our counsel,” he said. “In actuality, they had suggested, through their attorney, that they would consider changing the name from the Lemkin Institute.”

According to the attorneys’ letter, sent on behalf of Joseph Lemkin and the European Jewish Association and obtained by The Algemeiner, the institute may face legal action if it does not accept a name change voluntarily.

“We are prepared to move forward to compel the Lemkin Institute to cease using Raphael Lemkin’s name and likeness,” it said. “We have recently read in one of your press releases, however, that you would consider dropping the Lemkin and simply call yourself The Institute for Genocide Prevention, Inc. If that is indeed the case, our issue with you is resolved. We certainly prefer to amicably resolve this matter. Please advise.”

“So, our attorneys reached out to them, but we never heard back,” Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner.

“The one thing that stands out,” he continued, “is that if you go on their website, you’ll see they sell Palestinian flags and mugs. This is an activist organization — not a principled organization looking to identify genocide. They have an agenda, and they’re trying to push it. That’s my concern. It doesn’t seem that they’re starting on a balanced playing field.”

“We reached out directly, through our counsel, at least twice — most recently in October and got no response,” he added.

‘A Terrible Thing They’ve Done to the Lemkin Name’

Joseph’s brother, Benjamin Lemkin, similarly told The Algemeiner that he opposes the institute’s use of his family name.

“It’s completely obvious that Raphael Lemkin would not have been accusing Israel of genocide in any fashion,” he said. “By all objective standards, Israel has done more to protect civilians than any other country fighting wars — even when those countries are not fighting wars of an existential nature. In this case, however, Israel is fighting a war of an existential nature. If anything, perhaps Raphael Lemkin, who was a Zionist and a strong advocate of Jewish survival, would have felt that Israel possibly is not doing enough to defend itself.”

He continued, “Given the fact that Raphael Lemkin was motivated in part by the scourge of antisemitism, he would have immediately identified all of these malicious genocide accusations as constituting an antisemitic blood libel.”

“I am very proud to be part of this effort against the Lemkin Institute, and I have never heard of any family member supporting the institute,” he said, noting that he was quoted in November 2025 by The National Post, a Canadian newspaper, expressing his agreement with his brother’s initiative.

“If Raphael, who died in 1959, were alive today, he definitely would have been outraged,” he told the Post. “It is an abuse of his work … This is a terrible thing they’ve done to the Lemkin name.”

Medoff, the Holocaust scholar who spearheaded the letter in support of Joseph Lemkin, lamented how the institute attacked his colleagues.

“It’s sad that the Lemkin Institute’s president would stoop to questioning the scholarly credentials of some of the most prominent academics in the world of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, including authors of major texts in the field, chairs of university departments and Holocaust centers, and editors of leading publications,” Medoff told The Algemeiner, noting that in her LinkedIn post, von Joeden-Forgey put the word “scholars” in quotes. “She seems to be saying that you don’t even qualify as a scholar unless you agree with her anti-Israel views. What a remarkable position to take.”

The Algemeiner reached out to von Joeden-Forgey for comment but did not receive a response.


Atara Nurenberger Beck made aliyah in 2011 from Toronto, where she had many years of journalistic experience. She is currently a freelance writer and editor.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com