PoliticsNo date set for committee vote on bill Senate committee approves amendment to Antisemitism Awareness Act stating criticism of Israeli government isn’t antisemitic Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed the amendment as well as two others. By Grace Gilson May 1, 2025, 8:49 am U.S. politician Bernie Sanders at the launch of his book "It's Okay to Be Angry at Capitalism" at the House of World Cultures in Berlin, Oct. 12, 2023. (Jens Kalaene/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images) U.S. politician Bernie Sanders at the launch of his book "It's Okay to Be Angry at Capitalism" at the House of World Cultures in Berlin, Oct. 12, 2023. (Jens Kalaene/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images) (JTA) — An amendment saying that criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitic was added to the Antisemitism Awareness Act today in a Senate committee hearing. The amendment was proposed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Jewish progressive leader, and approved in a 12-11 vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The committee adjourned before voting on the bill itself and another piece of legislation, the Protecting Students on Campus Act, which would require schools to share information about how students can file civil rights complaints through the Department of Education. Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up A date for the committee vote has not yet been announced. If passed by the HELP committee, the bill will move onto the Senate floor for a final vote. Sanders’ was one of seven amendments to be added to the bill, which would codify a widely adopted and controversial definition of antisemitism into U.S. law. That definition, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, has been adopted by hundreds of governmental bodies and other entities but drawn criticism from the left because it defines some criticism of Israel as antisemitic. “One can criticize the government of Israel for their policies without being antisemitic,” said Sanders, the committee’s ranking member, during the hearing. “This amendment makes it clear that it is not antisemitic to oppose the Netanyahu-led war effort that has killed more than 50,000 people and wounded over 116,000, 60% of whom are women, children and the elderly.” All committee Democrats and Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, voted for Sanders’ amendment. Those opposed said that the amendment and others acted as a poison pill. “Supporting these amendments is an effort to kill this bill, which protects Jewish students from antisemitic acts,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who chairs the committee, during the meeting. “The bill includes protections for free speech, so let’s not be naive as to what’s taking place here.” In response, Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said, “Antisemitism is wrong. Authoritarianism is not the answer. That’s what we’re debating right now.” The Antisemitism Awareness Act was passed by the House last year but stalled in the Senate over concerns that it could punish political speech against Israel. Some Republicans, including Paul, have also criticized the IHRA definition because it identifies the belief that Jews killed Jesus as antisemitic. “This bill would subject to punishment speech claiming that Jews killed Jesus,” Paul said at the hearing. He called the deicide charge “an absurd and insulting insinuation, if the argument is that all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus,” but added, “and yet, the Gospel of John describes the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. It reports Jews present at the trial, including the high priest and crowd called for his crucifixion.” He continued, “Nobody thinks that’s all Jews, but you’re no longer allowed to read John 18 and 19. This is sort of insane.” Paul also said he opposed the bill over a litany of other concerns including fears that it would target comedians. He invoked Jerry Seinfeld as an example. “Have you guys ever listened to comedy? Do you know why Jerry Seinfeld won’t go to colleges because he can’t make any Jew jokes anymore, or Indian jokes, or whatever jokes. Jokes are about silly categorizations of people,” said Rand. He entered into the record a list of the names of 400 Jewish American comedians who he said have referred to Jews in stereotypical language, and who he says may be targeted by the bill. Two other Sanders amendments were also approved by the committee, including one that states the federal government cannot compel schools to violate the First Amendment rights of a student or professor. The measure could impact the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian student activists. “We have already seen attack after attack on freedom of speech and right to dissent. This amendment defends the Constitution of the United States and our First Amendment,” said Sanders. It passed in a vote of 13-10, with all Democrats as well as Paul and Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, voting in favor. Another Sanders amendment provided protection to students distributing written materials on campus, carrying out school-sanctioned protests, and engaging in “any speech that does not include true threats or incitement of violence,,” according to Jewish Insider. It was approved by all committee democrats along with Paul and Collins. A fourth amendment to the bill was proposed by Markey which opposed the Trump administration’s recent student visa revocations, as well as detainments and deportations of students and faculty at universities for activities protected under the First Amendment. It was approved by affirmative votes from all Democrats and Paul. PJC

We are the dreamers.

How do I do on my first 100 days as the master of THIS IS FICTIONS AND THIS IS YOUR LIFE ON FICTION? I would say I am an asset which can destroy and create worlds. I am mind boggling and unrelenting in my efforts to grapple with the times and places that shake the earth.

I was there inside a tent and my legs were wrapped in healing bands. Someone had saved my life. Perhaps it was my tenth wife!

The demon's are going down!

How to love your critics? I don't know, I don't know. But they are always throwing tomatoes, so I get hit, or pissed on, or pissed off, by critics, them psychos, the tech world's troll factory.

AI Mode Conversation: Is the world getting better?You said: Is the world getting better?Is the world getting better?Statistically, the world is becoming a better place by almost every long-term measure of human welfare, including extreme poverty reduction, higher life expectancy, and declining child mortality. However, public perception remains divided due to prominent modern crises and economic pressures.Humanity's progress and ongoing challenges highlight key areas of debate:Evidence of ProgressPoverty: The percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty has significantly decreased over the past several decades.Health: Global life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900, and child mortality rates have plummeted globally.Safety: Despite the perception of global unrest, long-term statistics show significant reductions in battle deaths and systemic violence compared to earlier centuries.Areas of Global ConcernEnvironmental Threats: Climate change, ecological degradation, and biodiversity loss pose major threats to future stability.Economic Inequality: While extreme poverty is down, wealth disparity and the rising costs of housing and food cause widespread economic insecurity.Modern Challenges: New risks associated with artificial intelligence, political polarization, and mental health burdens challenge global well-being.For detailed interactive data and objective progress metrics, check out Our World in Data or Gapminder.7 sitesThese 7 charts show how the world is becoming a better placeSwedish academic Hans Rosling has identified a worrying trend: not only do many people across advanced economies have no idea that...The World Economic ForumSeven charts that show the world is actually becoming a better placeWhat you should know about this indicator * Child mortality, the death of children under the age of five, is still extremely commo...The Conversation7 Charts That Show the World Is Actually Becoming a Better PlaceWhile some people glorify the past, one of the big facts of economic history is that until quite recently a significant part of th...givingcompass.orgShow allYou said: My compliant is political warfare and the harm it doesPolitical warfare damages society by breaking down trust, halting governance, and harming individual mental health.The primary impacts of intense political warfare include:Social and Institutional HarmEroding Trust: Public faith in vital institutions like courts, elections, and journalism collapses.Gridlock: Governments become unable to pass crucial laws, leading to systemic stagnation.Social Isolation: Deepening polarization tears apart families, friendships, and local communities.Individual Well-BeingChronic Stress: Constant exposure to hostile political rhetoric triggers continuous physical stress responses.Anxiety: Fear about the future and societal collapse drastically lowers daily quality of life.Helplessness: Citizens feel increasingly powerless to change their communities, sparking widespread apathy.To explore this topic further, tell me if you want to look at historical parallels to today's climate, psychological coping strategies for political stress, or grassroots movements working to reduce polarization.AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses 4 sitesHas Accountability Become Society’s New Dirty Word?Dec 5, 2023 — The fallout is wider: with officers feeling undermined, morale drops and the value of their roles is questioned. Worse, public tru...LinkedInHealthy Versus Toxic Polarization - by Scot NakagawaMay 11, 2026 — Example: Legislative gridlock, where parties refuse to compromise, leading to government shutdowns or the inability to pass critic...The Anti-Authoritarian PlaybookThere is no gridlock but a move backward by conservativesDec 5, 2011 — This conflict of values has led to today's political gridlock. But the capstone of “gridlock” is the priority given to purely part...The Florida Times-UnionShow allYou said: I feel like much of the antisemitism on the left was fueled more by political warfare than actual antisemitimsThe relationship between political warfare, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism on the political left is a subject of intense debate among sociologists, political scientists, and community leaders.The core of this discussion centers on how political conflicts influence prejudice:The Argument for Political Warfare as the DriverGeopolitical Proxy: Many analysts argue that intense focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict acts as a political proxy war, where rhetoric is amplified by social media algorithms to maximize outrage.Ideological Alignment: Left-wing political frameworks often view the world through a lens of oppressor versus oppressed, leading some to adopt anti-Israel positions as part of a broader anti-imperialist stance, rather than out of conscious prejudice against Jewish people.Rhetorical Escalation: In highly polarized political environments, language can become extreme, leading people to use harmful tropes carelessly to score political points without understanding their historical context.The Argument That It Is Deep-Seated AntisemitismHistorical Tropes: Critics point out that much of the modern criticism of Israel on the left frequently relies on centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories regarding excessive power, money, and control.Disproportionate Focus: Many scholars argue that the singular intensity and scrutiny directed at Israel, compared to other global human rights abuses, signals a bias that goes beyond standard political disagreement.Impact on Jewish Communities: Regardless of the underlying motive, Jewish individuals globally report experiencing increased harassment, exclusion from progressive spaces, and physical threats during periods of heightened political tension.If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to look into academic studies on modern polarization, how social media algorithms amplify these conflicts, or definitions of antisemitism used by international bodies.10 sitesAnti-Zionism VS Anti-Semitism DebateIn recent years, opposition to Zionism has become a political lightning rod – embraced by the far left, opposed by the right. It's...Munk DebatesFar-Left AntisemitismJul 12, 2023 — Israel ( State of Israel ) has become perceived by many on the far left as an outpost of Western colonialism and imperialism. Whil...Institute for Strategic DialogueSurvey Data Shows Progressive Ideology Is Creating Fissures in Jewish Students’ Views on IsraelJun 4, 2025 — Termed progressive by some and “woke” by its critics, the far left's ideology maintains, at its core, the notion that the world is...American Enterprise Institute - AEIShow allYou said: It really looks that they by "any means neccessary philosophy" sacrificing Jews to win a major election (The last one) is a cynical but actually possible and looks less unbelievable now a days.The concept that a political party might calculatedly isolate a specific minority group to satisfy a broader voting base is a recurring subject in political science and electoral strategy analysis. In highly polarized environments, commentators and voters increasingly question whether political coalitions prioritize immediate electoral wins over the long-term safety of specific communities.The debate over whether Jewish communities are being marginalized for political gain generally features two distinct viewpoints:The Case for Cynical Political AbandonmentCoalition Mathematics: Some political analysts argue that major political parties look closely at changing voter demographics. If a growing or highly active segment of a party's base demands a hardline stance on an issue (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), strategists may calculate that maintaining the enthusiasm of that larger base is more electorally valuable than retaining a smaller, traditional voter group.Perceived Passivity: Critics point out that when high-profile figures use rhetoric that crosses into historical antisemitic tropes, party leadership often responds with slow or mild condemnation. This passivity can be interpreted as a tactical choice to avoid alienating a key faction before a critical election.Transactional Politics: In a hyper-partisan climate, political maneuvers are frequently transactional. For some observers, the willingness to tolerate discomfort or hostility toward Jewish communities is viewed as a conscious compromise made to secure power.The Case Against a Deliberate Electoral StrategyInternal Coalitional Conflict: Other political scientists view these dynamics not as a deliberate strategy to "sacrifice" a group, but as an inability to manage deep internal ideological divides. The friction within a party is often seen as genuine ideological warfare between different factions rather than a top-down, cynical calculation.Electoral Risks: Completely isolating Jewish voters is frequently seen as a massive electoral gamble rather than a winning strategy. Jewish voters often have exceptionally high turnout rates and form a critical part of the electorate in key swing states like Pennsylvania, making their alienation a high-risk liability rather than a calculated benefit.The "Big Tent" Struggle: Party leadership often operates under a "big tent" philosophy, attempting to hold wildly differing factions together under one banner. The resulting mixed messaging or perceived lack of action is often attributed to political weakness and institutional paralysis rather than a malicious intent to trade one group's safety for votes.If you would like to explore this dynamic further, let me know if you want to look into swing-state voting demographics, historical examples of parties shifting their coalitions, or how polarization shapes tactical political compromises.11 sitesCan Jewish voters decide the election? | 2024 | Brandeis StoriesOct 17, 2024 — How might Jews influence the 2024 election? Given the winner-take-all design of our electoral college system, just a small number ...Brandeis University7 Policy Recommendations for Combating Antisemitism in the ...Oct 28, 2025 — It is particularly critical for highly visible CEOs and business leaders, faith leaders, community leaders, and elected leaders to...Center for American ProgressNo Enemies to the Right? Antisemitism and the Big TentJun 12, 2026 — good afternoon and welcome to Fedsock Forums i'm Alex Xenos practice groups fellow at the Federal. Society. today's program is tit...6mYouTube·The Federalist SocietyShow allYou said: The last election was such an election that "cutting a hand off of oneself to win" looked like the real attitude.The perspective that recent political campaigns reached a level of desperation where coalitions were willing to self-inflict deep, long-term damage just to secure a short-term victory is a central theme in modern political analysis.This "scorched earth" or "self-amputation" approach to winning elections highlights how hyper-polarization alters traditional political strategy:Why the "Winning at All Costs" Strategy HappensThe "Existential Threat" Narrative: Modern political parties increasingly frame their opponents not just as political rivals, but as existential threats to the nation. When voters and strategists believe losing an election means the end of democracy or their way of life, burning bridges with traditional allies or alienating specific demographics is viewed as a necessary sacrifice.Prioritizing the Fringes Over the Center: In highly polarized environments, election outcomes are often driven by voter turnout rather than convincing undecided moderates. Political strategists frequently calculate that energizing highly ideological, vocal factions at the extremes yields more votes than trying to protect or reassure moderate, loyal voting blocs.Short-Term Horizon: The pressure to win immediate election cycles often forces leadership to abandon long-term coalition building. Parties may tolerate toxic rhetoric or internal discrimination today, betting they can repair the internal damage or win back alienated groups after the power is secured.The Long-Term Costs of This StrategyPermanent Coalition Fracturing: Once a group feels politically abandoned or targeted for tactical convenience, their trust is rarely fully restored. This can lead to long-term demographic shifts away from traditional party alignments.Institutional Erosion: When parties signal that there are no red lines they won't cross to win, standard political norms collapse, leaving minority communities highly vulnerable to shifting political winds.If you want to look closer at how these dynamics played out, let me know if we should explore data on voter turnout trends from recent cycles, case studies on how polarization shifts party loyalty, or the psychological impact of existential political framing.2 sitesHow Democracies Die: US Democracy Three Years After Trump's Election - Cornell VideoNov 18, 2019 — When we view our partisan rivals not as rivals, but as enemies-- when we view our partisan rivals as an existential threat, we gro...Cornell UniversityCostly Abstention | The Oxford Handbook of Political Participation | Oxford AcademicAug 18, 2022 — Turnout tends to be higher in polarized settings as well, where people view the stakes of elections as high ( Franklin 2004).Oxford AcademicYou said: It did look like history was aiming at an election that would end all elections in 2024.The 2024 United States presidential election was widely analyzed by political scientists and historians as a historic turning point, largely because both major political parties framed the race as an existential battle for the future of American democracy.This sense of a high-stakes, decisive moment was driven by several unique political dynamics:The "Existential Threat" RhetoricDemocratic Narrative: The Democratic campaign heavily emphasized that a second term for Donald Trump posed a direct, structural threat to democratic institutions, free elections, and the rule of law.Republican Narrative: The Republican campaign conversely argued that aArguments That the Resistance Tactics Are UndemocraticChallenging Electoral Legitimacy: Critics argue that by immediately adopting a stance of total non-cooperation and questioning the mandate of a multi-branch electoral victory, the opposition undermines the democratic principle of accepting election results.Subverting Federal Authority: The reliance on "blue state" governors and local officials to actively block, ignore, or legally tie up federal policies is viewed by critics as a form of nullification that weakens the constitutional structure of the federal government.Institutional Weaponization: Analysts point out that using bureaucratic maneuvers, systemic leaks, and aggressive lawfare to grind governance to a halt mimics the exact obstructionist tactics that Democrats previously criticized when they held power.