Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed over their views on Israel Thursday, calling their positions "wrong" and saying they did not reflect congressional Democrats.

The two progressive Democrats were mentioned by "On Brand" podcast host Donny Deutsch, who asked Pelosi how he, as a Jewish man, could reconcile his support for the Democratic Party with politicians whose statements he considered antisemitic.

"When you say Israel doesn't have the right to be a Jewish state, that's antisemitic as far as I'm concerned with all that," Deutsch said.

PRO-ISRAEL LEADER WARNS DEMOCRATS FAILING TO CONDEMN ‘VICIOUS JEW HATERS’ IN CONGRESS

When Pelosi asked for examples, Deutsch named Mamdani and El-Sayed, calling their comments "concerning."

"No, it's more than concerning," Pelosi responded. "It's wrong. It's wrong. And it isn't a reflection of the Democrats in the Congress of the United States. This new person in Michigan, we'll see if he gets elected to the Congress. But the mayor, bless his heart, I hope he succeeds as mayor, but I don't agree with some of the things he has said. But in terms of our people in the House of Representatives, if somebody says that, the other members disassociate themselves from it."

Before he was elected New York City mayor, Mamdani repeatedly dodged questions when asked if Israel should be a Jewish state. In a June 28 interview with ABC News, however, Mamdani said he supported Israel as a state with equal rights but declined to endorse it as a Jewish state. 

"I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can’t tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else," Mamdani said.

El-Sayed has repeatedly declined to affirm whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. In a May appearance with Jewish supporters, the candidate said he "struggled" to answer this question and suggested the idea of a Jewish state wasn't consistent with the liberal values "we say we believe in here in the United States."

CARVILLE WARNS DEMOCRATS' ANTI-ISRAEL ‘LOUDMOUTHS’ COULD COST ELECTIONS

Earlier in the interview with Deutsch, Pelosi initially denied that anyone in the Democratic Party was antisemitic.

"The fact is that I really do not know of anybody there on our side who is engaged in antisemitism. That may be what it appears to be or what they're charged to be. But if they are, it's only a few. If there are, I think sometimes they say things that they shouldn't and can be interpreted that way," Pelosi said.

Despite her concerns about Mamdani and El-Sayed's comments, she dismissed their impact on the party as a whole.

"People represent their districts, and we have to respect that. The job description, job title is representative, but that doesn't mean it has an impact on the consensus of the Democratic Party, and [House Minority Leader] Hakeem Jeffries has been very clear on that," Pelosi said.

Fox News Digital reached out to representatives for Pelosi, Mamdani and El-Sayed for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

RAHM EMANUEL ACCUSES ANTI-ISRAEL DEMS OF HAVING NO MIDDLE EAST PLAN BESIDES CUTTING FUNDING TO JEWISH STATE

Rabbi Yaakov Menken, executive vice president of the Coalition for Jewish Values, acknowledged Pelosi "as one of the Jewish community's best friends among House Democrats" but said it was alarming that she did not seem to recognize antisemitism among her colleagues.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Pelosi claims she wants for those voices to be marginalized within her party, yet she demonstrates that she has turned a deaf ear, both to antisemitic expression from her colleagues and to the rabbis anxious to set her straight on the magnitude of the problem. If she is indeed one of our best friends, should we not be scared by that?" Menken told Fox News Digital.

The Justice Department's Antisemitism Task Force Chairman Leo Terrell is taking the Trump administration’s fight against antisemitism directly into Jewish communities on a 15-city nationwide tour, and he says he means business.

Terrell told Fox News Digital that local leaders have too often failed to respond while Jewish Americans face threats in their schools, workplaces and houses of worship.

"The whole purpose of this tour is to go to where the problem is at, to address their needs, and to provide them with federal support," Terrell said. "Antisemitism is now, and we have to come up with solutions for the future."

ANTISEMITIC VIOLENCE REACHES DEADLIEST LEVEL SINCE 1994, NEW GLOBAL REPORT FINDS

The "American Tour Against Hate" began Oct. 14 in Michigan, bringing representatives from the Justice Department, FBI and Labor Department together with Jewish residents, students, educators and religious leaders. The federal officials addressed antisemitism in workplaces and schools, as well as the enforcement of hate-crime laws.

Terrell said the tour was created to reach communities that feel ignored or abandoned by local officials and to connect them directly with federal resources.

"We had the FBI at the first tour meeting because some of these cities have failed to prosecute hate crimes," Terrell said, naming Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, New York and Detroit. He did not identify specific unprosecuted cases.

Terrell said every stop on the tour would include a public event followed by visits to synagogues, Jewish schools and community centers.

WOMAN BUSTED IN NYC RABBI SYRINGE ATTACK ALLEGEDLY STABBED ANOTHER JEWISH MAN HOURS EARLIER: REPORT

"The tour is really two days," he said. "We have a two-hour tour event where the community is invited. You know what we do the next day? I spend the next day, all day in the Jewish community."

The tour comes as Jews remain disproportionately targeted in religiously motivated hate crimes. According to the latest FBI data, law enforcement agencies reported 1,528 single-bias anti-Jewish hate-crime incidents in 2025. The data also showed that 62.4% of victims of religious-bias hate crimes were targeted because of anti-Jewish bias.

Terrell characterized protecting Jewish students and religious communities as a "24-7 obligation," encompassing colleges, K-12 schools and synagogues. He also criticized the financial burden Jewish institutions face to protect students and worshipers, describing security expenses as a "Jewish tax."

Universities remain a major focus of Terrell’s work. He warned university presidents that federal scrutiny would continue if Jewish students remained unprotected, saying potential violations would not disappear with a change in administration.

JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE AT A ‘CROSSING POINT’ AS STUDENTS WEIGH ANTISEMITISM RISKS, NEW REPORT SHOWS

"All these campus presidents are on notice," he said. "You know what I think they’re trying to do? I think they’re trying to wait out President Trump. It’s not gonna happen."

He added, "Because if they fail to take care of Jewish American students, all students, we’re going back at them, each school, because those are ongoing violations," he said.

"My philosophy is quite simple. Don’t cut deals with these guys," Terrell added. "Force them to go to court, get a court order settlement to make sure they are under the gun to protect Jewish American students."

Asked about professors and those allegedly encouraging harassment, Terrell pointed to what he described as overseas influence on campuses.

"I think, first of all, there’s a lot of money being brought in from overseas to influence the administration, the faculty members and what I call professional harassers," he said.

Asked specifically whether foreign funding and organizational coordination were being investigated, Terrell said, "That is one of the tools."

BIPARTISAN DUO LAUNCHES CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS TO CONFRONT ANTISEMITISM AT COLLEGES

"The influence of overseas money as it impacts college campuses and really throughout this country to promote antisemitism. Let me tell you right now, that’s being investigated," he said.

His call for broader participation extended to young Christians. Terrell spoke to more than 200 students at the Christian Leaders Summit Forum in Lynchburg, Virginia, hosted by the Combat Antisemitism Movement.

Asked why their participation mattered, Terrell called it "probably the most important meeting I’ve ever had in my job," emphasizing the students’ youth and Christian faith.

SIGN UP FOR ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED NEWSLETTER

"This fight against antisemitism has to include everyone in this country," he said. "Antisemitism is not a Jewish issue. It’s an American issue. It’s a Western civilization issue."

"So I need these young people to join me on the stage, telling the Jewish community, telling all Americans we are together in fighting antisemitism," he added. "Religious freedom must be available to all Americans."

Asked what Jewish Americans who feel abandoned could count on him to deliver, Terrell urged them to seek help.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"I will never say no," he said. "I will never say no to help. Call my office, call the Department of Justice."

The British government’s decision to embrace sweeping measures addressing antisemitism in schools is drawing a sharp contrast with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s recently unveiled strategy, raising questions about why Britain’s plan appears more specific than the one proposed in America’s most Jewish city.

The U.K. government accepted all 27 recommendations from an independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges in England. The measures include encouraging adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, specialized training for educators, strengthened reporting procedures and independent oversight.

Mamdani’s 33-page strategy — while not only focused on education — by comparison, does not adopt a single definition of antisemitism, explicitly address the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism or establish numerical benchmarks for measuring whether its initiatives succeed.

British Jewish author and Holocaust educator Dov Forman, who recently graduated from university, said Mamdani could learn from Britain’s targeted approach to addressing antisemitism in schools.  

MAMDANI PLEDGES MILLIONS TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM WHILE LEAVING KEY QUESTION UNRESOLVED

The British review followed a BBC report from Yavneh College, a Jewish secondary school near London, where students described how antisemitism has affected their daily lives. Their accounts offered a window into the urgency behind the government’s recommendations.

Education provides one of the clearest points of comparison between the two strategies. Mamdani's plan calls for expanding Holocaust education, including opportunities for students to visit the Museum of Jewish Heritage, while also addressing how public schools respond to antisemitic discrimination. The U.K. government's recommendations address many of those same concerns, placing greater emphasis on how educators recognize antisemitism, how schools respond when incidents occur and what protections are in place for Jewish students.

The review, led by former senior education official Sir David Bell, found that nearly three in five Jewish people between the ages of 16 and 19 had experienced or witnessed antisemitism. It concluded that antisemitism is a distinct form of racism requiring a specific response and called for clearer guidance to distinguish legitimate political debate from harassment, intimidation and antisemitic rhetoric.

British Jewish author and Holocaust educator Dov Forman, who recently graduated from university, called the recommendations "the bare minimum," while acknowledging that the government is attempting to confront the problem directly.

"The least [Mamdani] could do is look at what has happened in the U.K. and adopt similar measures, such as adopting the IHRA definition, which is the agreed definition across the world and where there is a consensus of what antisemitism actually is," Forman told Fox News Digital.

"The basic way to solve antisemitism is to actually agree on what it is and to understand that targeting a Jew deliberately because of what is going on in Israel, for example, is antisemitic, as the IHRA definition says," he added.

Forman cautioned that the British recommendations remain largely optional and that their effectiveness will depend on whether institutions act.

"I do think some of them will be enforced and listened to. I do worry, though, that the government says things and does not actually take it seriously enough."

Education Secretary Lucy Powell said the government would establish an implementation group, while Bell was commissioned to conduct an independent assessment of its progress after one year.

Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, welcomed Britain’s decision while emphasizing that adopting recommendations is only the beginning.

JEWISH EDUCATORS FACE RAMPANT ANTISEMITISM IN TEACHERS UNIONS, NEW REPORT FINDS

"I welcome the U.K.’s announcement that it has accepted all 27 recommendations," Kaploun wrote on X. "Now, the challenge lies in implementation and enforcement."

Forman also said that British officials must examine whether their rhetoric about Israel contradicts their stated commitment to protecting Jewish communities.

"It is very rich of the government to say that schools should adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and that Jews should not be demonized for what is going on in the Middle East, and then for them to get up in the dispatch box in the House of Commons every week and blame Israel," he said.

"Stop talking and start acting," Forman added, calling on the government to confront Islamist extremism and the Muslim Brotherhood and identify more directly where antisemitism is originating.

The U.K. has faced criticism for being slow in combating antisemitism. Jewish residents have faced physical attacks, threats and harassment, making the specificity of its new plan and its contrast with New York City’s approach particularly notable.

Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz, senior rabbi of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, called Mamdani’s strategy a "paper tiger," arguing that its announced $36 million price tag obscures how little would go directly toward physical security.

"It’s a million dollars in security in a city with a million Jews. It’s a dollar a Jew," Steinmetz told Fox News Digital.

The strategy includes $1 million to support physical security for vulnerable nonprofit organizations, including synagogues and other houses of worship, and $6.4 million for grants through the city’s Partners Against the Hate initiative.

Steinmetz claimed that much of the money would support cultural centers and broadly defined community initiatives rather than immediate security needs.

SIGN UP FOR ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED NEWSLETTER

UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, the American Jewish Committee’s New York office and the New York Board of Rabbis issued a joint statement warning that Mamdani’s plan fails to address a central source of contemporary antisemitism.

The organizations said rhetoric demonizing or delegitimizing Israel contributes to Jewish New Yorkers being treated as suspect, excluded or unsafe, and argued that any serious strategy must acknowledge that connection.

"How can you have a strategy to keep New York Jews safe when you can’t even name what the danger is?" Steinmetz asked.

One of Mamdani’s early actions as mayor was to revoke an executive order issued by former Mayor Eric Adams adopting the IHRA definition for city agencies. The definition provides examples of when criticism of Israel may cross into antisemitism while making clear that criticism comparable to that directed at any other country is not inherently antisemitic.

Fox News Digital asked Mamdani’s office why the city’s strategy omits the IHRA definition and measurable benchmarks, and whether the administration would consider safeguards similar to those adopted by Britain. The mayor’s office did not respond by the time of publication.

Britain’s measures have also only recently been accepted, and their impact remains untested.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Britain has defined the problem, outlined specific recommendations and established a process for reviewing its progress. New York City’s Jewish leaders are still asking whether City Hall has accurately identified the threat it claims it intends to confront.

Fox News Digital's Sydney Finver contributed to this report.

Polling ahead of Israel’s Oct. 27 election projects that National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit Party will win between seven and ten seats in the 120-member Knesset, potentially making any future government led by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party contingent on his support and positioning him to secure senior ministerial portfolios.

His political rise mirrors a broader trend across Europe and the West, where parties such as Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella's National Rally in France, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Australia's One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, Italy’s Matteo Salvini and Germany's Alice Weidel of the AfD have all gained ground on traditional conservative political parties.

The highly controversial Ben-Gvir, as national security minister, oversees the ministry responsible for internal security, including the Israel Police, Israel Prison Service and civilian firearms licensing.

"I always say that Minister Ben-Gvir, if he were in America, he would just be called a Texan," Yishai Fleisher, international spokesman for the Jewish community of Hebron and a candidate ranked No. 12 on the Otzma Yehudit list, told Fox News Digital.

NETANYAHU PRAISES TRUMP'S 'WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR,' DEFENDS IRONCLAD ALLIANCE AHEAD OF HISTORIC ISRAEL VOTE

In a video interview with Fox News Digital, Fleisher continued, "Meaning law and order, the death penalty for murderers, tough conditions for jihadists in our prisons and gun rights for the average Jewish person to be able to defend themselves in our national state. That’s what Itamar Ben-Gvir stands for," he added.

Fleisher said that mass immigration had fueled Islamist extremism and unrest in parts of Europe, saying Israelis want to avoid similar developments.

"There is a jihadist takeover that has come in through immigration, and now the streets of Paris are burning, and the people of Belgium and the U.K. want their countries back," Fleisher said. "In Israel, we don’t want to see Tel Aviv burning," prompting politicians to embrace what are known in the United States as "law-and-order" and "tough-on-crime" candidates.

FORMER IDF CHIEF GADI EISENKOT EMERGES AS NETANYAHU’S LEADING ELECTION CHALLENGER
Former Israeli Ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon said that Ben-Gvir had missed an opportunity to change course despite his lack of military service and past conviction, arguing that his tenure had instead had a damaging impact, including on Israel’s diplomatic standing.

"Ben-Gvir spoke in a way that turned the entire world against Israel, portraying it as a racist country by making statements that made Israel a pariah state," Ayalon said.

Fleisher praised Ben-Gvir, who he said has cracked down on protection rackets in southern Israel and made significant progress toward what he described as greater equality for Jews on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site.

"Minister Ben-Gvir was an activist from a very young age. He saw the dangers and evils of the Oslo process with the Palestinians and tried to stop it. He was arrested and stopped many times because of that, and he faced the court many times. It was then-Chief Justice Aharon Barak who once told him, ‘Why don’t you go study to be a lawyer?’" Fleisher said.

Ben-Gvir, who studied law, became active in public and political affairs and was first elected to the Knesset in 2021. Following the 2022 elections, he was appointed minister of national security by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

His many critics have taken issue with his firebrand style and what many view as a lack of political correctness.  Ambassador Ayalon, a former deputy foreign minister, told Fox News Digital that he also viewed Ben-Gvir’s performance as national security minister negatively.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT VOTES TO CONFRONT MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, 'ISLAMIST ENTRYISM' IN OVERWHELMING VOTE

"During his tenure, Israel has become less secure internally because crime is rising. Many young people believed in the last election that he would bring governability and authority to areas such as the Negev and the Galilee, on the outskirts of the country, where there is almost no law," Ayalon said.

In 2007, Ben-Gvir was convicted of supporting a terrorist organization and inciting racism.

His campaign told Fox News Digital that the conviction stemmed from displaying a sticker of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach party was outlawed in 1994, and reflected his support for a Jewish nationalist movement.

"As a young man, Minister Ben-Gvir was an intense Jewish nationalist. He has said many times, publicly, that he has matured since then and moved on from those positions."

ABBAS DELAYS PALESTINIAN ELECTIONS AGAIN, MAKING MORE THAN TWO DECADES WITHOUT VOTE

Recent posts on Ben-Gvir’s social media accounts, along with statements issued through Netanyahu’s and Likud’s official channels, have raised questions about whether the two remain fully aligned.

On Oct. 15, Ben-Gvir shared a Hebrew-language media report quoting Netanyahu as saying that he would not serve again as national security minister. In response, Ben-Gvir wrote: "Dear Prime Minister, only the people will decide. Ben Gvir is strong, Israel is strong!"

TRUMP SAYS NETANYAHU NEEDS TO BE RE-ELECTED, OR ELSE US WILL HAVE TO 'FINISH THE JOB’ AGAINST IRAN ALONE

Last Wednesday, Netanyahu's Likud party appeared to reverse course, posting a message on its official WhatsApp channel stating: "Ben-Gvir is a senior minister in our government, and he will remain so in the next government — provided that the bloc consisting of the Left and Arab parties does not win."

Despite the public statements, Ayalon said Netanyahu could opt not to include Ben-Gvir in the next government, even if it meant forming an alliance with opposition parties such as Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar.

"Netanyahu is brilliant. He kept Ben-Gvir because it suited him. If he could, he would get rid of him in a minute. Bibi is capable of changing his mind on a dime," Ayalon said.

Fleisher credited Ben-Gvir with tripling the number of personal firearms and firearms licenses issued to Israelis over four years, establishing 1,000 rapid-response teams, overhauling the prison system and demolishing 9,000 illegally built homes, particularly in the Negev.

In March, the Knesset approved a death-penalty law sponsored by Otzma Yehudit and other lawmakers, a measure Ben-Gvir has strongly championed.

"No more hotel-like conditions in our prisons. You’ll know you are being punished for your crime, and these simple policies ultimately deter jihadism," Fleisher told Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"They understand that he represents a full-throated pushback against the jihadist takeover of our land. Ben-Gvir also represents a strong Jewish identity, strong policies and strong laws to ensure that we don’t lose control of our country," he said.

The latest polls show Netanyahu’s bloc slightly behind the opposition, led by Yashar party chief Gadi Eisenkot, but neither side has a clear path to the 61 seats needed for a governing majority.

Major drivers of the repression include pressure from wealthy pro-Israel donors, government interference, and the political loyalties of university administrators and trustees, according to a new report.

Pandering to Israel partisans above the needs of other New Yorkers, NY mayor increases security funding for synagogues, will focus on folding Jewish history into public school education, and pledges to highlight important Jewish cultural and religious sites in the mayor’s day-to-day governance of the city

Guy Katz, a German professor, is a leading figure in German politics on the subject of Israel and anti-Semitism. It is almost never disclosed in the widespread coverage and amplification he receives in German and international media that he is a former Mossad spy

The great temptation for left-wing forces to fish in the waters of the new antisemitism in search of votes is nothing new. It costs little; the Jews pay the price. In Rome, there is an eagerness to cast aside the common sense demonstrated by the Italian government, in coordination with Germany, and embrace this easy and politically rewarding line—this time by following Britain in imposing sanctions against Israel. Ignorance and double standards provide the backdrop. The ambition to embrace a new crusade against Israel emerged immediately after British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, announcing sanctions concerning Judea and Samaria, told Parliament that Israel is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and attempting to erase the two-state solution, writes Fiamma Nirenstein.

This, of course, ignores repeated Palestinian rejections of peace proposals and the reality created by the 7 October 2023 Hamas massacre. At the same time, British politicians have presented themselves as champions of human rights while ignoring monstrous violations committed by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Now that Britain has announced sanctions on products from Judea and Samaria, and has been followed by a procession of European countries driven by the pursuit of left-wing votes and fear of their growing Muslim populations, the parliamentary group leaders of Italy’s Democratic Party (PD), Five Star Movement (M5S) and Green and Left Alliance (AVS) on the Chamber of Deputies’ Foreign Affairs Committee have demanded urgent consideration of legislation imposing similar sanctions.

Angelo Bonelli, co-leader of AVS; Elly Schlein, leader of the Democratic Party; Giuseppe Conte, leader of the Five Star Movement and a former Italian prime minister, and others have signed on. Indeed, they consider it “shameful” that Italy, of all countries, is missing from this campaign. The document speaks of “illegal occupation” and offers other banal examples of the ignorance of those who wrote it. It also demonstrates the irresponsibility of a move whose primary consequence will be to further fuel mass antisemitism. We have already seen another demonstration of this phenomenon at a protest against legislation addressing antisemitism, where Hamas and Hezbollah flags were brought into Parliament. Only ISIS was missing.

Why is the path of sanctions wrong? First, those responsible for violent acts should be punished. But contrary to the propagandist image being presented, they constitute a fraction of the roughly 500,000 Israelis living in Judea and Samaria, a population representing a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds. Most condemn violent extremists and are themselves the targets of thousands of Palestinian terrorist attacks each year. Israel prosecutes its own criminals. Some are in prison; others are standing trial. But Judea and Samaria are not territories “illegally occupied” by Israel. The area was occupied by Jordan, whose annexation received almost no international recognition, until Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and was defeated. After repeated Israeli attempts to exchange land for peace, the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 divided Judea and Samaria into Area A, under Palestinian control; Area B, under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control; and Area C, under Israeli control. Israel has the right under those agreements to build in Area C, which also includes the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim.

Some of the greatest conflicts arise when Palestinians attempt to expand into Area C. Expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria would risk producing the same disastrous result as Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip—the creation of the conditions that eventually produced Yahya Sinwar and Oct. 7. There is another British mistake. It concerns the safety of Britain’s own citizens. Israel has helped protect Britain from serious terrorist threats. In 2015, for example, British authorities discovered three tons of ammonium nitrate stored by Hezbollah-linked operatives in London after receiving information from Israel. On the basis of what unfounded prejudices should a relationship encompassing security, science and culture be dismantled? Associating Israel with “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” is a lie.

Forcing Israel to surrender is unthinkable. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, with Israel’s decision to close the British Consulate in eastern Jerusalem, has delivered the first clear response. But the larger answer must be equally clear. Neither Miliband nor Schlein will draw the borders of a Palestinian state. It is absurd to imagine that they can. Only Israelis and Palestinians can negotiate those borders; they cannot be imposed from London, Rome or anywhere else. And no sanctions campaign can erase a fundamental historical truth: The Jewish people are not strangers in Judea and Samaria. Their roots there reach back thousands of years. Whatever the future of this land may be, it cannot be decided over the heads of the Jews whose history, identity and destiny are bound to it.

Israel’s embassy  in Belgium stated that the Israeli team ”is an example of coexistence in Israeli football. The team includes three Arab-Israeli players: Muhammad Abu Rumi, Mohammed Kna’an and Zahi Ahmed. Politics should never be allowed to interfere with sports,” writes Yossi Lempkowicz.

The ban, imposed by the mayor of the Belgian city of Leuven on the soccer match  between a Brussels-based team and an Israeli one ”is an expression of antisemitism” said the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations in Belgium (CCOJB).

The match between Union Saint Gilloise and Hapoel Be’er Sheva is scheduled to take place on 22 October as part of the Europa League. Since Union’s stadium in Brussels does not meet UEFA standards, the club cannot play there. For the European competition, it  had to turn to the Leuven stadium for all its home games.

However, last Tuesday (1 September), the mayor of Leuven, Mohamed Ridouani, ordered the cancellation of the match for ‘’security reasons’ due to the risk of unrest linked to the visit of an Israeli club, against the backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The mayor is a member of the Flemish Socialist party Vooruit.

The CCOJB condemned the reasons cited by the mayor of Leuven for prohibiting the match, particularly those related to security. “It is the mayor’s responsibility to ensure public safety and it is irresponsible to shirk that responsibility,” states the organization. adding that the decision was driven more by “hatred of Israel.”

A spokesperson for the embassy of Israel in Belgium stated that the Israeli team ”is an example of coexistence in Israeli football. The team includes three Arab-Israeli players: Muhammad Abu Rumi, Mohammed Kna’an and Zahi Ahmed. Politics should never be allowed to interfere with sports.”

Israeli players “should be judged by their professional abilities, not by politics or political views. Sport should remain sport, free from political agendas”, the embassy said on X.

The spokesperson offered that Israel’s Ambassador-designate to Belgium David Saranga meet with the Leuven mayor.

An Antwerp-based group, JID vzw – Stop Antisemitism,  has formally filed a complaint against the mayor  decision of the mayor of Leuven.

”We request that the decision and the complete accompanying administrative and security file be obtained without delay and that the decision be reviewed in light of the law and the public interest. If the required legal, factual, and proportional basis is lacking, we request that the supervisory authority annul the decision,” it said.

The Durban Conference in South Africa in September 2001 was not just an event; it was a turning point. It was the modern-day Wannsee that planned the contemporary destruction of the Jewish people. I was there for the Italian newspaper, La Stampa. The stench of something rotten was already emanating from the preparations for the great gathering “against racism” convened by the United Nations, with the participation of an enormous number of NGOs—some 3,000—all of them with knives between their teeth, determined to demonstrate that, under the banner of human rights, the real enemy was Israel, writes Fiamma Nirenstein.

It was there, even more than with the U.N.'s “Zionism is racism” resolution of 1975, that Stalin’s path was resumed. In 1952-53, he had initiated and theorized a new great hunt against the Jews, inventing the blood libel of the “Jewish doctors’ plot” and staging the Slánský trial. The systematic murder and deportation of Jews were interrupted by the dictator’s death in 1953. But with theorists such as Maxime Rodinson and Francis Crémieux, the premises were laid for declaring Israel the new enemy of humanity.

The positions that ultimately led to Durban maintained that “the Israeli government has long been simply an agent of American imperialism.” The supposed proof lay in the malign role of Jews in the world. The doctors accused in the so-called conspiracy—all innocent, their confessions extracted under torture—became “identical to the Nazi doctors of Dachau,” in the pay of the Americans. The inversion begins This was the beginning of the inversion that, on Oct. 7, 2023, led to Israel and the Jews being accused of genocide instead of the evident intentions of Hamas and its barbaric determination being condemned. At Durban, the death sentence against Israel went hand in hand, for the first time, with the preemptive legitimization of terrorism, now carried out by “freedom fighters” rather than the terrorists of Munich or Fiumicino.

At a demonstration along the battered streets on the outskirts of Durban, just days before Sept. 11, the crowd marched behind portraits of its mastermind, Osama bin Laden. Along the dusty road, young NGO activists called—as their documents did—on “all of civil society,” from the Maya to the Tibetans, everyone oppressed by racism, to embrace the struggle against Israel and transform it into the fundamental human-rights struggle. When I told the editors at my newspaper, La Stampa, they replied that I had an obsession with that poor Saudi shepherd. The conference was organized by a United Nations that had by then been captured by the great Third World and Islamic blocs that had reliably provided the Soviet Union with a majority. “Zionism is racism,” the 1975 resolution, was an addendum to the death sentence against Judaism following Hitler’s attempt to eliminate it from the planet.

Israel was the new target of antisemitism, invariably linked to anti-Americanism and viewed as the spearhead of the colonial and imperialist West. Every truth was erased. Israel’s almost desperate attempts to share the territory and make territorial concessions to the Arab world were rejected time and again. In 2000, after Arafat had been brought back despite his appalling embrace of terrorism, the Second Intifada erupted. By the time Durban took place, we were in the midst of the Intifada—a preliminary 7 October.

Its preparatory documents had been written and discussed in Strasbourg, Santiago and, astonishingly, Tehran, where since 1979 an Islamist regime had ruled whose foundational principle was the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel as absolute evil In Durban, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat and Robert Mugabe converged, and the Jewish question was inserted into the heart of demands for billions in reparations for slavery. Israel obviously had nothing to do with this history, but it was portrayed as absolute evil. The Palestinianism of Durban held that Israel was racist, imperialist, colonialist and genocidal—and therefore even a slave-owning power. All these adjectives are meaningless when applied to a country that represents the miraculous return home, disarmed and hungry, of the people indigenous to that land, armed only with hoes and books.

They armed themselves only when, awakening from the dream, they realized that their lives were once again at risk. And even then, Israel continued to surrender large pieces of territory in the search for peace. I was there In Durban, I rented a room inside a compound surrounded by high walls. I shared it with a journalist from the Italian left-leaning daily, La Repubblica, who was thrilled by the opportunity to encounter Castro and the other idols of the era in the corridors—and, with a little luck, perhaps Nelson Mandela as well. There was the official conference, the domain of Mary Robinson, who purported to moderate the international proceedings and restrain them from excessively harsh resolutions that had in fact been planned from the beginning.

Then there were the stadium and other NGO gathering places, where antisemitic hatred was expressed in every possible way: leaflets, speeches, songs and actual physical hunts for Jews. Several times I had to run away and seek refuge in a building belonging to the local Jewish community, where one could also find something to eat. Thousands of NGO members wore T-shirts bearing the image of Mohammed al-Dura alongside the conference logo. The production of leaflets about Palestinian suffering was endless. Jews were depicted with missiles and knives, blood dripping from their mouths and murdered children. The word “genocide” was already commonplace. From the podium, in a crowded, darkened hall, Fidel Castro, while demanding financial reparations for entire continents for slavery and colonialism, spoke of “the terrible genocide being perpetrated today against our Palestinian brothers” by Israel’s then-prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whom he described as a far-right leader acting in alliance with the “hegemonic superpowers.” Arafat celebrated the universal acceptance of his worldview, describing the situation as the “expression of the racist colonial conspiracy” to uproot the Palestinians and conquer their land. In short, the troops of that global war had finally assembled—a war that only days later would find its expression in the attack on the Twin Towers. That was the true meaning of Durban.

And the Palestinian cause, together with the destruction of Israel, was baptized as the indispensable prerequisite for every revolutionary struggle. The astonishment and disbelief in Israel and the United States were enormous. After everything the Jews had endured, and while they were suffering through the Intifada, finding themselves once again facing such a broad and senseless assault on their right to self-determination and self-defense, their right to return home and the very liberal-democratic nature of their country seemed like a nightmare. The two delegations under attack took days to decide to leave. Israel continued to insist, as Diaspora Affairs Minister Michael Melchior said, that racism—the supposed subject of the conference—was so important to Jews that the country wanted to participate in the discussion and the decisions. In the end, the United States and Israel had to walk out. Canada and Europe remained, but the European position sought an impossible compromise. It proposed restoring the Holocaust to the final documents as the worst expression of racism.

The interventions by Italy’s Renato Ruggiero, Germany’s Joschka Fischer and, in the corridors, the excellent Margherita Boniver—the only one who understood fully, to the point of tears—were hesitant and moderate. Fischer had the strength to say that the right of the Jews to their own state was indisputable. But he returned to the Palestinians’ right to a state and once again forgot that Israel had never called that right into question since 1948, despite its countless offers. ‘Did not happen in a vacuum’ By contrast, the denial of the Jews’ right to have their own state like every other people reached its paroxysm on Oct. 7. And once again the United Nations lined up against Israel, as it had at Durban. So it was with the words of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who, instead of expressing horror and condemnation, responded with his infamous statement that the 7 October attacks “did not happen in a vacuum”. It is true: They did not happen in a vacuum. Durban is a milestone in the antisemitic catastrophe that once again torments the world today, and the United Nations is its prophet.

It is a mistake to respond to antisemitic accusations, writes Fiamma Nirenstein.

Would responding have served any purpose at the time of the racial laws and the deportations? No. The intention is the same: to eliminate the Jews and their independent state, Israel.

There is no point responding to those who claim on social media that organs are removed from children killed by Jews—an accusation that echoes the ancient blood libel of Jews murdering children for their blood.

Nor is there any point arguing with professors who describe an all-powerful “Israeli lobby” controlling Italian politics.

Who is going to reason with the owner of yet another Swiss hotel that expels Israeli tourists? Or with the thugs who beat up a family on the streets of Athens?

Who will argue with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who, together with the UN General Assembly president, Annalena Baerbock, recently lit a memorial flame for deceased UN personnel, including Imad El Samhouri, a United Nations Relief and Works Agency employee who was also a Hamas terrorist and whose videos invoked death as a shahid?

And who wants to shout themselves hoarse arguing with Hollywood, Turkey, Canada and the rest? Don’t answer them.

In Hollywood, more than 200 figures from the worlds of film, music and culture backed a campaign calling for the release of Marwan Barghouti from an Israeli prison, including actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton. They neglect to mention that Barghouti is serving five life sentences after an Israeli court convicted him in 2004 of five murders and involvement in a string of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada.

We must stop feeling obliged to argue that Jews are good, that Jews are innocent or that Israel has the right to defend itself. Anyone genuinely interested in the evidence can find it. The facts are available to everyone.

The accusations of colonialism, genocide, racism and systematic cruelty directed at Israel are contradicted by history and by evidence that has been documented and quantified.

Consider the United Nations.

In 2025, the U.N. General Assembly adopted 15 resolutions singling out Israel, compared with 11 concerning all other countries in the world combined, six of them concerning Russia.

That disparity illustrates how politics manufactures hatred of Jews.

Antisemitism today is not simply a matter of prejudice or ignorance. It has become a political instrument. It is used to obtain votes, influence, positions, money and power.

The United Nations exploits it in its alignment with the Third World and Islamic blocs. Turkey and Iran exploit it through Islamism. Political movements exploit hatred of Israel while claiming to champion human rights.

In reality, hatred of Israel has become both a substitute for human rights and their graveyard.

That is why explanations are not enough.

What is required is political struggle: criminal complaints where laws are broken, legislation where protections are inadequate and serious scrutiny of the political and financial interests behind campaigns targeting Israel and Jews.

It also means defending the rights that Israel’s enemies so often disregard: the rights of children, women, gays and political dissidents.

It means defending security, of which Israel remains a guardian.

It means reclaiming universities and political parties from ideologies that have transformed hostility toward Israel into an acceptable political creed.

And it means establishing institutional boundaries for businesses, hotels, media organizations and cultural festivals that discriminate against Israelis or legitimize antisemitism.

Italy has even witnessed a general strike directed against Israel. Nor is there any point arguing with those who describe an all-powerful “Israeli lobby” controlling Italian politics, supposedly headed by none other than Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani.

This is no longer merely a debate about foreign policy. It is a political war.

The battle against antisemitism cannot be won by endlessly answering every lie. It must be fought where antisemitism now operates: in politics, institutions, universities, international organizations and culture.

The fight against antisemitism can restore the human rights that have been buried beneath the genocidal slogan: “From the river to the sea.”