

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jonah Rubin| jonah@jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Liv Kunins-Berkowitz | liv@jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Jewish Scholars intentionally violate the controversial and discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism which has been a tool for the Trump administration to imprison activists and dismantle higher education
Over 32 prominent Jewish scholars of antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and Jewish History today challenged the Trump administration’s authoritarian crackdown on free speech by demonstrating the danger and falsehood of its false claims to care about Jewish safety. The Trump administration uses the guise of fighting antisemitism in order to attack the Palestinian rights movement and enact its broader authoritarian agenda including dismantling higher education and targeting student activists. Trump and his allies use a controversial, dangerous, and discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism, which inaccurately conflates criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism. The IHRA definition and its associated examples have been criticized and rejected by Jewish, Palestinian, Israeli, civil rights, and human rights organizations for years.
The first Trump administration embraced the discredited IHRA definition in a 2019 Executive Order and has reinforced it in another EO from January 2025. Over the last several months, the IHRA definition has been a tool in the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services’ broad attacks on universities, including their withholding billions in federal funds from institutions of higher education, and their egregious detainment of student activists. The Trump administration is now pushing universities to adopt this flawed definition of antisemitism, as part of a broader campaign of censorship and ideological control over universities. Many scholars, including Kenneth Stern, the author of the definition, have warned that Trump is using this definition to attack academic freedom and free speech.
Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University: “We take action to expose the absurdity of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Hundreds of Jewish scholars around the world oppose it, including those who have publicly violated it today in rallies and protests in cities and campuses across the United States. The IHRA definition prohibits experts from talking about well-documented historical and contemporary realities, such as the systemic racism in Israel that is expressed explicitly and in unashamed terms in Israel's own Jewish Nation-State Basic Law. The IHRA definition also requires us to censor truths about Israel’s genocide in Gaza documented by the UN, Amnesty Internation, Human Rights Watch, and a growing number of Holocaust and genocide scholars who describe the killing of more than 50,000 Palestinians, including over 18,000 children, as a genocide. As a Jewish-Israeli scholar of the Holocaust who grew up with four grandparents who had survived the Holocaust, I reject this definition and I am proud to join dozens of Jewish scholars today in violating it and insisting on the value of our expertise and our scholarship.”
The intentional violations of the discredited IHRA definition took place across the country as part of a larger “Day of Action” organized by the Coalition for Action in Higher Education, in partnership with the American Association of University Professors, Jewish Voice for Peace, and other organizations.. Scores of other scholars, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace and the Liberatory Jewish Studies Network, engaged in similar violations at rallies across the country and in recorded statements.
The flawed IHRA definition outlines several examples of “contemporary antisemitism” that dangerously and falsely conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. For example, the definition asserts that it is antisemitic to “draw.. comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” This provision is an egregious overreach that silences Holocaust scholars and Holocaust survivors who have found it necessary to draw comparisons.
At the AAUP-organized New York City rally in Foley Square, Marianne Hirsch, Professor of English and Comparative Literature and a scholar of Holocaust Memory at Columbia University said: “The widespread embrace of the confusing IHRA definition of antisemitism has created a crisis in my field of Genocide and Holocaust Studies. When I teach the history and memory of the Holocaust, I necessarily use historical analogy as a method of knowledge and inquiry. We learn things by comparing, as long as we do it with care. Right now, it is irresponsible to teach the Nazi persecution of Jews – which included ethnic cleansing, population transfer, starvation, expulsion and murder —without referring to the Israeli military’s brutal assault on Gaza. To do so is to violate the terms of the IHRA definition. Not to do so is to capitulate our intellectual integrity as scholars, our moral fiber as human beings and our sense of justice as citizens.”
Jonah Rubin, Sr. Manager of Campus Organizing at JVP: “The white supremacists, Christian Nationalists, and far-right authoritarians driving Trump’s so-called antisemitism policy do not care about Jewish safety. They embrace discredited definitions of antisemitism as a tool to attack social movements , rip visa holders away from their families and communities, and dismantle higher education. Today, some of the most prominent scholars of antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and Jewish history are putting themselves on the line and laying out a challenge for every college and university president: will you continue to bow down to Trump’s demands or believe the experts and reject the IHRA definition and stand up for free speech.”
Interviews with scholars including Raz Segal, Marianne Hirsch, and Judith Butler available upon request
Participants include:
Rabbi Dr. Rebecca T. Alpert, Professor of Religion Emerita at TempleDr. Joel Benin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History and Professor of Middle East History, Emeritus at Stanford University. Dr. Bernadette Brooten, Kraft-Hiatt Professor Emerita of Christian Studies and Professor Emerita of Women's and Gender Studies at Brandeis University.Dr. Rachel Ida Buff, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Dr. Judith Butler, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Hasia Diner, Paul And Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History at New York University.Dr. Jonathan Feingold, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University.Dr. Penny Gold, Burkhardt Distinguished Professor of History, Emerita at Knox College.Dr. Emmaia Gelman, professor in Social Sciences at Sarah Lawrence College and the founding Director of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism.Dr. Lisa Heineman, Professor of History, University of IowaDr. Marianne Hirsch, William Peterfield Trent Professor Emerita of English and Comparative Literature and the Institute for the Study of Sexuality and Gender at Columbia University. Dr. Nitzan Lebovic, Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies and Ethical Values at Lehigh University.Dr. Bruce Levine, J. G. Randall Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History, University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignDr. Mark Levine, Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History, University of California, Irvine.Dr. Laura Levitt, Professor of Religion, Jewish Studies and Gender at Temple University.Dr. Zachary Lockman, Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, and History at New York University.Nina Mehta, Co-Director of PARCEO.Dr. Eli Myerhoff, AAUP Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom Fellow.Dr. Donna Nevel, co-director of PARCEO and an expert in antisemitism.Dr. Atalia Omer, Professor of Religion, Conflict, and Peace Studies at Notre Dame University.Dr. Penny Rosenwasser, City College of San Francisco. Dr. Jonah Rubin, Sr. Manager of Campus Organizing, Jewish Voice for Peace.Dr. Rayaa Rusenko, Independent Scholar, National Coalition of Independent Scholars.Dr. Jennifer Ruth, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Professor of Film at Portland State University.Dr. Daniel Segal, Jean M. Pitzer Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Professor Emeritus of History at Pitzer College.Dr. Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University.Dr. Aaron Shakow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard University.Dr. Victor Silverman, Emeritus Professor of History, Pomona College.Dr. David Slavin, Emory University.Dr. Tamir Sorek, Liberal Arts Professor of Middle East History at Penn State University. Dr. Arlene Stein, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers UniversityDr. Barry Trachtenberg, Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History at Wake Forest University.Dr. Alan Wald, H. Chandler Davis Collegiate Professor Emeritus at University of Michigan.
Jewish Voice for Peace is a national, grassroots organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for a just and lasting peace according to principles of human rights, equality, and international law for all the people of Israel and Palestine. JVP has over 200,000 online supporters, over 70 chapters, a youth wing, a Rabbinic Council, an Artist Council, an Academic Advisory Council, and an Advisory Board made up of leading U.S. intellectuals and artists.
(510) 465-1777Content creator María Teresa Felipe Sosa hailed Cubans as "a people who refuse to submit to the true regime of horror, which the United States represents, as it goes around starting wars throughout the world."
As the team at Tehran-based Explosive Media keeps churning out viral artificial intelligence-generated Lego-style animated videos condemning the US-Israeli war on Iran, a Cuban version of the clips reacting to President Donald Trump's threats to attack the island appeared Monday on social media.
First posted by Havana art historian and digital content creator María Teresa Felipe Sosa, the video was shared by users including US investigative journalist Ryan Grim and Explosive Media, which added, "Welcome to the #LRF Cuba," or Lego Resistance Front.
"The threat that Cuba represents to the United States is the dignity and principles of a people who refuse to submit to the true regime of horror, which the United States represents, as it goes around starting wars throughout the world," Felipe said Tuesday on social media.
According to the video's lyrics:
They seek to stifle the lifeblood of this land with the talons of empire and the drums of war, from the north they unleash their poisonous breath seeking to seize what belongs to others. But this soil has roots of steel and a people who cannot be bought with money.
They raise walls of hatred and lies while the island, relying on its own strength, breathes amid 60 years of constant hostile siege—yet we continue to march forward with a firm step. There is no threat that can break our faith; the Cuban knows well how to stand tall.
Here dignity has neither price nor master; we are the guardians of our own dream. My people, stand tall, with fists held high against the invader and their dark assault.
There's no surrender beneath this burning sun, for it's known that the homeland must be defended. Resist my brother with your head held high for every victory in the battle-hardened struggle, your love is the compass of our people, for you know that the homeland must be defended.
The video comes amid more than 65 years of US-based terrorism, assassination attempts, and a tightened economic embargo targeting Cuba, as well as Trump's threats to attack or "take" the island. Despite extreme hardship caused or exacerbated by these internationally condemned policies, the Cuban people have been resolute in their resistance to US aggression.
With no victory in sight in the US-Israeli war on Iran and the American people increasingly wary of yet another war of choice waged by the self-described "president of peace" who's now attacked 10 countries over the course of his two terms in office, even some Republican lawmakers are warning Trump against attacking Cuba.
Asked if he would support such an attack, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told The Hill on Tuesday, "No, I would not."
"There’s a lot of economic pressure you can put on Cuba that makes a big difference by itself,” the hawkish senator added.
Numerous Democratic lawmakers have consistently opposed any attack on Cuba; however Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently helped sink a Senate war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from attacking the country.
More than 6 in 10 Americans surveyed by multiple pollsters in recent months said they oppose a US war on Cuba.
Responding to the renewed US menace under Trump, Felipe recently wrote that "the current threats aren't anything new, they only confirm a dangerous insistence—that of replacing international law with the law of the strongest."
"In the face of that, Cuba responds with an uncomfortable and persistent idea—its people does not give up," she continued. "Cuba is not seeking confrontation. It demands respect. And history, although some prefer to ignore it, has been clear—independence is not negotiated under threat."
"Once again," Felipe added, "and against all imperial odds, Cuba will win."
"These numbers tell the real story," said one campaigner. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans."
While inflation hit a three-year high on Tuesday and President Donald Trump publicly confessed that he doesn't consider how his illegal war on Iran impacts Americans' finances, a Federal Reserve bank revealed that US household debt has risen to a record high of $18.8 trillion.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Center for Microeconomic Data found that household debt increased by $18 billion in the first quarter of this year.
It specifically found that by the end of March, mortgage balances increased by $21 billion to $13.19 trillion, home equity line of credit balances jumped by $12 billion to $446 billion, and automobile loan balances rose by $18 billion to $1.69 trillion.
The center further found that "while student loan balances remained essentially flat, decreasing by $6 billion and standing at $1.66 trillion," the delinquency rate "increased to 10.3% of balances 90+ days delinquent, up from the 9.6%" in the last quarter of 2025.
The analysis notes that credit card balances dropped by $25 billion to $1.25 trillion, a seasonal decline that generally occurs after the winter holidays. However, in its coverage of the New York Fed's findings, CNBC highlighted another report out Tuesday that shows how Americans are struggling with current economic conditions.
As CNBC detailed:
More than half—53%—of consumers carry credit card balances to cover essential expenses, according to a report released Tuesday by debt management company Achieve.
"For many households, higher balances are less a sign of economic optimism and more a sign that wages and savings are struggling to keep pace with essential expenses like groceries, utilities, and housing," Austin Kilgore, analyst for the Achieve Center for Consumer Insights, said in a statement.
Among respondents in Achieve's survey of 2,000 consumers, 57% of borrowers said it would take six months or longer to pay off all their credit card debt.
According to ABC News, "On a call with reporters Tuesday morning, researchers at the New York Fed described Americans' overall credit as 'stable,' but noted there are weaknesses among younger consumers and lower-income households."
Mike Pierce, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, was far more scathing, declaring in a statement that "working families are at a breaking point and desperately need relief. Instead, President Trump is bragging about his plans for a new White House ballroom while his head economist touts families' surging debts as a sign of a booming economy."
"These numbers tell the real story: Trump's economy has driven up costs," Pierce continued. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans under stagnant wages and rampant price gouging by grocery conglomerates, data centers, corporate landlords, and private equity firms."
"Making matters worse, Trump's war with Iran is pushing inflation to record levels and forcing Americans to feel the economic pain at the pump," he added, as gasoline prices topped $4.50 a gallon on Tuesday. "It is clear that President Trump is not only failing to 'Make America Affordable Again' but is actively pushing millions of families further into the red."
Last week, Pierce's group and The Century Foundation published an analysis about soaring US auto loan debt. Report co-author and Protect Borrowers senior fellow Tara Mikkilineni said at the time that "for millions of working families, a car is not a luxury, it is an essential economic lifeline. Working families deserve relief, and they deserve to have a government that is watching out for them, not allowing lenders and auto dealers to rake in record profits at their expense."
Meanwhile, Trump—who is facing intense disapproval from the US public, particularly regarding the economy—has repeatedly made clear he doesn't care how his policies, from sweeping tariffs to the Iran War, impact Americans' pocketbooks.
Trump's assault prompted Iran to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route, which has driven up the prices of fossil fuels worldwide. Speaking with journalists outside the White House last month, Trump suggested that $4 a gallon for gas is "not very high."
Asked about the war's impact on the US public's finances again on Tuesday, Trump said that "the only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran—they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing—we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all."
Those remarks came just hours after the latest consumer price index from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that prices increased by 3.8% on an annual basis in April—above economists' expected 3.7% jump—and the cost of living rose above average monthly wage gains. Various experts responded by taking aim at the president.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers said that "Trump campaigned on bringing down the cost of living 'starting on day one,' and then: started a trade war; deported much of the farm workforce, bombed Iran, allowed healthcare subsidies to expire, cut food assistance, ran an interest-rate boosting deficit, and attacked Fed independence."
Sen. Jeff Merkley called the project “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday released a report estimating that President Donald Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense system would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
The CBO report projects that acquisition costs for the proposed national missile defense (NMD) system would account for the vast majority of the $1.2 trillion total, including "costs for the system’s major components—namely, the interceptor layers and a space-based missile warning and tracking system."
In fact, the report says that the NMD system's space-based interceptor layer will be so expensive that it "accounts for about 70% of acquisition costs and 60% of total costs."
The CBO also questioned whether this massive investment would successfully protect the US from a foreign missile attack.
"Although the notional NMD system... would be far more capable than defenses the United States fields today," the report states, "it would not be an impenetrable shield or be able to fully counter a large attack of the sort that Russia or China might be able to launch."
"The strategic consequences of deploying an NMD system with the capacity considered here are unclear," the report continues, "because they hinge on an adversary’s perception of the defense's capability and how that adversary chose to respond."
The CBO's estimate on the missile system's cost was nearly seven times the projection Trump made last year, when he said it would cost just $175 billion.
And because the US Department of Defense still hasn't delivered key details about the proposed system, the CBO wrote, it is currently "impossible to estimate the long-term cost" of the initiative.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a longtime critic of the "Golden Dome" proposal, said the CBO report shows the Trump-backed project is "nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans."
"Just like the president’s symbolic renaming of the Department of Defense or deploying National Guard troops to our cities," added Merkley, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, "this move to fund the ‘Golden Dome’ will be far more effective at squandering money than protecting American lives."
The Oregon Democrat vowed to "continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to prevent another dime from flowing to this racket."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), also a longtime critic of the president's proposed missile system, wrote in a social media post that "Trump’s Golden Dome is a $1.2 trillion golden sieve that won’t stop a nuclear attack, but will balloon the deficit and boost the bottom lines of billionaires."
Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama and current co-host of Pod Save America, was even blunter in his criticism of the "Golden Dome" plan.
"$1.2 TRILLION for this dumb fucking Golden Dome missile defense system," he wrote in a social media post. "The initial estimate was $175 billion! Madness. No one wants this."
Daniel Larison, contributing editor at Antiwar.com and former senior editor at The American Conservative magazine, wrote that the CBO report exposed Trump's dome as a "trillion-dollar boondoggle."
Trump has said that he was inspired to develop such a missile system after being impressed by Israel’s “Iron Dome," despite the fact that Israel has a vastly smaller landmass to defend compared to the US and has historically faced far more danger from missile and rocket attacks.