Macklemore did it twice
Joseph Milstein on why Macklemore’s repeat MetLife Stadium speeches turned a paid Ed Sheeran concert into a political rally the crowd never chose.
Joseph Milstein
6
mins read time
Originally published at
JNS
An aerial view of MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Photo by Anthony Quintano via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).
MetLife Stadium is a short drive from my house. I have sat in that building with my kids. I have paid for the parking, the merchandise, the overpriced water, the whole ritual. So when I read the accounts from Sept. 4 and Sept. 5, I read them the way any parent in this part of New Jersey would, which is to say as something that happened close to home rather than something that happened on the internet.
Here is what happened, stated plainly.
Macklemore, born Benjamin Haggerty, opened for Ed Sheeran on the LOOP Tour at MetLife last Friday, Sept. 4. Wearing a keffiyeh, he told a stadium crowd that a large part of the reason he took the tour was so he could stand on stages in America and say two words: “Free Palestine.”
He said them more than once. He extended the list to Lebanon, Cuba, the Congo, Sudan and Iran and to people living in fear of ICE, which he called a terrorist organization. He accused Israel of apartheid and genocide. He then performed “Hind’s Hall” while footage from Gaza and pro-Palestinian demonstrations ran on the stadium screens.
Choice and policy
Then he came back on Saturday and did it again.
That second night is the entire matter. Everything else is commentary.
Friday can be argued as passion. A performer in front of a stadium gets carried away by the moment, saying the thing he has been saying for two years. I don’t have to like it to concede that people say things onstage. But the reaction was public and loud within hours. The videos were up. The walkouts were being described in real time. He took the stage on Saturday with all of it on record—and he did it again.
Friday was a choice. Saturday was a policy.
Prepared disclaimer
Now consider the disclaimer because it is the most revealing thing that he said all weekend. He told the crowd that to his Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, opposition to genocide, is in no way criticism of them.
That line was prepared material, not improvisation. He delivered a version of it both nights. Which means he anticipated that Jews in the audience might experience what was coming as an attack, and rather than reconsider the material, he supplied the defense alongside it. You do not build a defense against an accusation you haven’t already contemplated. And the defense does not hold because the words he chose are not criticism.
Not criticism—accusation!
Criticism is a policy argument. Criticism is a claim about a campaign, a strategy, a government, a decision. Genocide and apartheid are not criticisms. They are verdicts. They are among the heaviest charges in the international lexicon. Their application to Israel is fiercely contested, and he delivered them as settled fact to a stadium crowd with a jumbotron behind him and no possibility of reply.
That is not criticism. That is a summation to a jury that was never told it had been empaneled.
Then there is the list, which tells you more than the speech does.
Cuba. The Congo. Sudan. Iran. Lebanon. Every one of those is a real human crisis, every one named in a single breath and abandoned in the next. Sudan alone has produced one of the largest displacement crises on earth. It got four syllables. It didn’t get a song. It didn’t get a garment. It didn’t get the screens.
Only one country in that list was tried, convicted and sentenced from the stage—and it is the only Jewish one.
He can tell me the asymmetry means nothing. But the asymmetry is the message. Everything else was scenery.
Unfair to customers
I spend my working life on contracts and transactions, so let me put the rest of it in those terms.
A stadium show is a commercial transaction with a defined deliverable. Tens of thousands of people paid, in many cases several hundred dollars per seat, for a specific good: an evening built around Ed Sheeran’s music. They arranged childcare, parking, hotel rooms, three hours of a Friday or Saturday night. What they received in the middle of that purchase was a political proceeding they didn’t select and could not opt out of without abandoning part of a very pricey investment.
That is the arithmetic of the stadium, and he knows it. The audience was already assembled. The tickets were already sold. He didn’t have to persuade anyone to come hear him make the argument.
If he wants that audience, he can build it. He is a Grammy winner with a real catalogue and a real following. He can book his own tour, put the message on the poster, sell tickets to people who know exactly what they are buying and stand in front of a room that consented. He chose instead to borrow a crowd that came for someone else.
ADVERTISEMENT
Et tu, Sheeran?
Which brings me to Ed Sheeran, who has said nothing.
As of this writing, there has been no public statement from Sheeran addressing what happened at MetLife. And Macklemore remains listed as a special guest for the Sept. 19 show in Philadelphia.
In my business, when someone operating on your platform creates a problem for your customers, you have about a day to say something before your silence becomes the position of record. Sheeran is past that. The silence is no longer merely an absence. It is an answer, particularly after the same performance was allowed to proceed a second night.
I am not asking anyone to be silenced. I want to be very precise about that since the people who will dismiss this piece will need to pretend I said otherwise.
Macklemore has every right to his views and every right to voice them. The First Amendment restrains the government. It does not obligate a promoter to provide a stage or a stadium to host a political message. And it certainly does not obligate a father from New Jersey to buy a ticket to one without being told.
Truth in advertising?
There is a clean solution, and it costs nothing: Disclose it.
Put it at the point of sale. If substantial political advocacy is part of the support act’s set, then say so on the ticket page the way you would disclose an obstructed view or other material information about the event. Let people decide with the information in hand. Anyone confident in a message should be delighted to advertise it.
If the tour will not disclose it, then the tour should pull the act—not because his opinions are forbidden, but because the audience was sold one kind of evening and given another. Either path is honest. Selling a love-song ticket and delivering a political rally in the middle of it is not.
I have no illusion about what happens next. He will be fine. There will be a statement about love and dignity, the tour will roll into Philadelphia, and by November, this will be a footnote in a very long year.
But I would ask him to be accurate about one thing since accuracy is apparently the standard he wants applied to everyone else. He did not speak truth to power at MetLife Stadium. Power was the stage, the lineup, the screens, the microphone and tens of thousands of people who had come to see somebody else.
He had all of it. The family that walked out during his set and came back for the headliner had none of it.
They paid for the evening.
He borrowed it.
Originally published at: jns.org
Originally published at
JNS
ADVERTISEMENT
Macklemore did it twice
Joseph Milstein on why Macklemore’s repeat MetLife Stadium speeches turned a paid Ed Sheeran concert into a political rally the crowd never chose.
Joseph Milstein
6
mins read time
Originally published at
JNS
An aerial view of MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Photo by Anthony Quintano via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).
MetLife Stadium is a short drive from my house. I have sat in that building with my kids. I have paid for the parking, the merchandise, the overpriced water, the whole ritual. So when I read the accounts from Sept. 4 and Sept. 5, I read them the way any parent in this part of New Jersey would, which is to say as something that happened close to home rather than something that happened on the internet.
Here is what happened, stated plainly.
Macklemore, born Benjamin Haggerty, opened for Ed Sheeran on the LOOP Tour at MetLife last Friday, Sept. 4. Wearing a keffiyeh, he told a stadium crowd that a large part of the reason he took the tour was so he could stand on stages in America and say two words: “Free Palestine.”
He said them more than once. He extended the list to Lebanon, Cuba, the Congo, Sudan and Iran and to people living in fear of ICE, which he called a terrorist organization. He accused Israel of apartheid and genocide. He then performed “Hind’s Hall” while footage from Gaza and pro-Palestinian demonstrations ran on the stadium screens.
Choice and policy
Then he came back on Saturday and did it again.
That second night is the entire matter. Everything else is commentary.
Friday can be argued as passion. A performer in front of a stadium gets carried away by the moment, saying the thing he has been saying for two years. I don’t have to like it to concede that people say things onstage. But the reaction was public and loud within hours. The videos were up. The walkouts were being described in real time. He took the stage on Saturday with all of it on record—and he did it again.
Friday was a choice. Saturday was a policy.
Prepared disclaimer
Now consider the disclaimer because it is the most revealing thing that he said all weekend. He told the crowd that to his Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, opposition to genocide, is in no way criticism of them.
That line was prepared material, not improvisation. He delivered a version of it both nights. Which means he anticipated that Jews in the audience might experience what was coming as an attack, and rather than reconsider the material, he supplied the defense alongside it. You do not build a defense against an accusation you haven’t already contemplated. And the defense does not hold because the words he chose are not criticism.
Not criticism—accusation!
Criticism is a policy argument. Criticism is a claim about a campaign, a strategy, a government, a decision. Genocide and apartheid are not criticisms. They are verdicts. They are among the heaviest charges in the international lexicon. Their application to Israel is fiercely contested, and he delivered them as settled fact to a stadium crowd with a jumbotron behind him and no possibility of reply.
That is not criticism. That is a summation to a jury that was never told it had been empaneled.
Then there is the list, which tells you more than the speech does.
Cuba. The Congo. Sudan. Iran. Lebanon. Every one of those is a real human crisis, every one named in a single breath and abandoned in the next. Sudan alone has produced one of the largest displacement crises on earth. It got four syllables. It didn’t get a song. It didn’t get a garment. It didn’t get the screens.
Only one country in that list was tried, convicted and sentenced from the stage—and it is the only Jewish one.
He can tell me the asymmetry means nothing. But the asymmetry is the message. Everything else was scenery.
Unfair to customers
I spend my working life on contracts and transactions, so let me put the rest of it in those terms.
A stadium show is a commercial transaction with a defined deliverable. Tens of thousands of people paid, in many cases several hundred dollars per seat, for a specific good: an evening built around Ed Sheeran’s music. They arranged childcare, parking, hotel rooms, three hours of a Friday or Saturday night. What they received in the middle of that purchase was a political proceeding they didn’t select and could not opt out of without abandoning part of a very pricey investment.
That is the arithmetic of the stadium, and he knows it. The audience was already assembled. The tickets were already sold. He didn’t have to persuade anyone to come hear him make the argument.
If he wants that audience, he can build it. He is a Grammy winner with a real catalogue and a real following. He can book his own tour, put the message on the poster, sell tickets to people who know exactly what they are buying and stand in front of a room that consented. He chose instead to borrow a crowd that came for someone else.
ADVERTISEMENT
Et tu, Sheeran?
Which brings me to Ed Sheeran, who has said nothing.
As of this writing, there has been no public statement from Sheeran addressing what happened at MetLife. And Macklemore remains listed as a special guest for the Sept. 19 show in Philadelphia.
In my business, when someone operating on your platform creates a problem for your customers, you have about a day to say something before your silence becomes the position of record. Sheeran is past that. The silence is no longer merely an absence. It is an answer, particularly after the same performance was allowed to proceed a second night.
I am not asking anyone to be silenced. I want to be very precise about that since the people who will dismiss this piece will need to pretend I said otherwise.
Macklemore has every right to his views and every right to voice them. The First Amendment restrains the government. It does not obligate a promoter to provide a stage or a stadium to host a political message. And it certainly does not obligate a father from New Jersey to buy a ticket to one without being told.
Truth in advertising?
There is a clean solution, and it costs nothing: Disclose it.
Put it at the point of sale. If substantial political advocacy is part of the support act’s set, then say so on the ticket page the way you would disclose an obstructed view or other material information about the event. Let people decide with the information in hand. Anyone confident in a message should be delighted to advertise it.
If the tour will not disclose it, then the tour should pull the act—not because his opinions are forbidden, but because the audience was sold one kind of evening and given another. Either path is honest. Selling a love-song ticket and delivering a political rally in the middle of it is not.
I have no illusion about what happens next. He will be fine. There will be a statement about love and dignity, the tour will roll into Philadelphia, and by November, this will be a footnote in a very long year.
But I would ask him to be accurate about one thing since accuracy is apparently the standard he wants applied to everyone else. He did not speak truth to power at MetLife Stadium. Power was the stage, the lineup, the screens, the microphone and tens of thousands of people who had come to see somebody else.
He had all of it. The family that walked out during his set and came back for the headliner had none of it.
They paid for the evening.
He borrowed it.
Originally published at: jns.org
Originally published at
JNS
ADVERTISEMENT
Macklemore did it twice
Joseph Milstein on why Macklemore’s repeat MetLife Stadium speeches turned a paid Ed Sheeran concert into a political rally the crowd never chose.
Joseph Milstein
6
mins read time
Originally published at
JNS
An aerial view of MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Photo by Anthony Quintano via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).
MetLife Stadium is a short drive from my house. I have sat in that building with my kids. I have paid for the parking, the merchandise, the overpriced water, the whole ritual. So when I read the accounts from Sept. 4 and Sept. 5, I read them the way any parent in this part of New Jersey would, which is to say as something that happened close to home rather than something that happened on the internet.
Here is what happened, stated plainly.
Macklemore, born Benjamin Haggerty, opened for Ed Sheeran on the LOOP Tour at MetLife last Friday, Sept. 4. Wearing a keffiyeh, he told a stadium crowd that a large part of the reason he took the tour was so he could stand on stages in America and say two words: “Free Palestine.”
He said them more than once. He extended the list to Lebanon, Cuba, the Congo, Sudan and Iran and to people living in fear of ICE, which he called a terrorist organization. He accused Israel of apartheid and genocide. He then performed “Hind’s Hall” while footage from Gaza and pro-Palestinian demonstrations ran on the stadium screens.
Choice and policy
Then he came back on Saturday and did it again.
That second night is the entire matter. Everything else is commentary.
Friday can be argued as passion. A performer in front of a stadium gets carried away by the moment, saying the thing he has been saying for two years. I don’t have to like it to concede that people say things onstage. But the reaction was public and loud within hours. The videos were up. The walkouts were being described in real time. He took the stage on Saturday with all of it on record—and he did it again.
Friday was a choice. Saturday was a policy.
Prepared disclaimer
Now consider the disclaimer because it is the most revealing thing that he said all weekend. He told the crowd that to his Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, opposition to genocide, is in no way criticism of them.
That line was prepared material, not improvisation. He delivered a version of it both nights. Which means he anticipated that Jews in the audience might experience what was coming as an attack, and rather than reconsider the material, he supplied the defense alongside it. You do not build a defense against an accusation you haven’t already contemplated. And the defense does not hold because the words he chose are not criticism.
Not criticism—accusation!
Criticism is a policy argument. Criticism is a claim about a campaign, a strategy, a government, a decision. Genocide and apartheid are not criticisms. They are verdicts. They are among the heaviest charges in the international lexicon. Their application to Israel is fiercely contested, and he delivered them as settled fact to a stadium crowd with a jumbotron behind him and no possibility of reply.
That is not criticism. That is a summation to a jury that was never told it had been empaneled.
Then there is the list, which tells you more than the speech does.
Cuba. The Congo. Sudan. Iran. Lebanon. Every one of those is a real human crisis, every one named in a single breath and abandoned in the next. Sudan alone has produced one of the largest displacement crises on earth. It got four syllables. It didn’t get a song. It didn’t get a garment. It didn’t get the screens.
Only one country in that list was tried, convicted and sentenced from the stage—and it is the only Jewish one.
He can tell me the asymmetry means nothing. But the asymmetry is the message. Everything else was scenery.
Unfair to customers
I spend my working life on contracts and transactions, so let me put the rest of it in those terms.
A stadium show is a commercial transaction with a defined deliverable. Tens of thousands of people paid, in many cases several hundred dollars per seat, for a specific good: an evening built around Ed Sheeran’s music. They arranged childcare, parking, hotel rooms, three hours of a Friday or Saturday night. What they received in the middle of that purchase was a political proceeding they didn’t select and could not opt out of without abandoning part of a very pricey investment.
That is the arithmetic of the stadium, and he knows it. The audience was already assembled. The tickets were already sold. He didn’t have to persuade anyone to come hear him make the argument.
If he wants that audience, he can build it. He is a Grammy winner with a real catalogue and a real following. He can book his own tour, put the message on the poster, sell tickets to people who know exactly what they are buying and stand in front of a room that consented. He chose instead to borrow a crowd that came for someone else.
ADVERTISEMENT
Et tu, Sheeran?
Which brings me to Ed Sheeran, who has said nothing.
As of this writing, there has been no public statement from Sheeran addressing what happened at MetLife. And Macklemore remains listed as a special guest for the Sept. 19 show in Philadelphia.
In my business, when someone operating on your platform creates a problem for your customers, you have about a day to say something before your silence becomes the position of record. Sheeran is past that. The silence is no longer merely an absence. It is an answer, particularly after the same performance was allowed to proceed a second night.
I am not asking anyone to be silenced. I want to be very precise about that since the people who will dismiss this piece will need to pretend I said otherwise.
Macklemore has every right to his views and every right to voice them. The First Amendment restrains the government. It does not obligate a promoter to provide a stage or a stadium to host a political message. And it certainly does not obligate a father from New Jersey to buy a ticket to one without being told.
Truth in advertising?
There is a clean solution, and it costs nothing: Disclose it.
Put it at the point of sale. If substantial political advocacy is part of the support act’s set, then say so on the ticket page the way you would disclose an obstructed view or other material information about the event. Let people decide with the information in hand. Anyone confident in a message should be delighted to advertise it.
If the tour will not disclose it, then the tour should pull the act—not because his opinions are forbidden, but because the audience was sold one kind of evening and given another. Either path is honest. Selling a love-song ticket and delivering a political rally in the middle of it is not.
I have no illusion about what happens next. He will be fine. There will be a statement about love and dignity, the tour will roll into Philadelphia, and by November, this will be a footnote in a very long year.
But I would ask him to be accurate about one thing since accuracy is apparently the standard he wants applied to everyone else. He did not speak truth to power at MetLife Stadium. Power was the stage, the lineup, the screens, the microphone and tens of thousands of people who had come to see somebody else.
He had all of it. The family that walked out during his set and came back for the headliner had none of it.
They paid for the evening.
He borrowed it.
Originally published at: jns.org
Originally published at
JNS
ADVERTISEMENT
Macklemore did it twice
Joseph Milstein on why Macklemore’s repeat MetLife Stadium speeches turned a paid Ed Sheeran concert into a political rally the crowd never chose.
Joseph Milstein
6
mins read time
Originally published at
JNS
An aerial view of MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Photo by Anthony Quintano via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).
MetLife Stadium is a short drive from my house. I have sat in that building with my kids. I have paid for the parking, the merchandise, the overpriced water, the whole ritual. So when I read the accounts from Sept. 4 and Sept. 5, I read them the way any parent in this part of New Jersey would, which is to say as something that happened close to home rather than something that happened on the internet.
Here is what happened, stated plainly.
Macklemore, born Benjamin Haggerty, opened for Ed Sheeran on the LOOP Tour at MetLife last Friday, Sept. 4. Wearing a keffiyeh, he told a stadium crowd that a large part of the reason he took the tour was so he could stand on stages in America and say two words: “Free Palestine.”
He said them more than once. He extended the list to Lebanon, Cuba, the Congo, Sudan and Iran and to people living in fear of ICE, which he called a terrorist organization. He accused Israel of apartheid and genocide. He then performed “Hind’s Hall” while footage from Gaza and pro-Palestinian demonstrations ran on the stadium screens.
Choice and policy
Then he came back on Saturday and did it again.
That second night is the entire matter. Everything else is commentary.
Friday can be argued as passion. A performer in front of a stadium gets carried away by the moment, saying the thing he has been saying for two years. I don’t have to like it to concede that people say things onstage. But the reaction was public and loud within hours. The videos were up. The walkouts were being described in real time. He took the stage on Saturday with all of it on record—and he did it again.
Friday was a choice. Saturday was a policy.
Prepared disclaimer
Now consider the disclaimer because it is the most revealing thing that he said all weekend. He told the crowd that to his Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, opposition to genocide, is in no way criticism of them.
That line was prepared material, not improvisation. He delivered a version of it both nights. Which means he anticipated that Jews in the audience might experience what was coming as an attack, and rather than reconsider the material, he supplied the defense alongside it. You do not build a defense against an accusation you haven’t already contemplated. And the defense does not hold because the words he chose are not criticism.
Not criticism—accusation!
Criticism is a policy argument. Criticism is a claim about a campaign, a strategy, a government, a decision. Genocide and apartheid are not criticisms. They are verdicts. They are among the heaviest charges in the international lexicon. Their application to Israel is fiercely contested, and he delivered them as settled fact to a stadium crowd with a jumbotron behind him and no possibility of reply.
That is not criticism. That is a summation to a jury that was never told it had been empaneled.
Then there is the list, which tells you more than the speech does.
Cuba. The Congo. Sudan. Iran. Lebanon. Every one of those is a real human crisis, every one named in a single breath and abandoned in the next. Sudan alone has produced one of the largest displacement crises on earth. It got four syllables. It didn’t get a song. It didn’t get a garment. It didn’t get the screens.
Only one country in that list was tried, convicted and sentenced from the stage—and it is the only Jewish one.
He can tell me the asymmetry means nothing. But the asymmetry is the message. Everything else was scenery.
Unfair to customers
I spend my working life on contracts and transactions, so let me put the rest of it in those terms.
A stadium show is a commercial transaction with a defined deliverable. Tens of thousands of people paid, in many cases several hundred dollars per seat, for a specific good: an evening built around Ed Sheeran’s music. They arranged childcare, parking, hotel rooms, three hours of a Friday or Saturday night. What they received in the middle of that purchase was a political proceeding they didn’t select and could not opt out of without abandoning part of a very pricey investment.
That is the arithmetic of the stadium, and he knows it. The audience was already assembled. The tickets were already sold. He didn’t have to persuade anyone to come hear him make the argument.
If he wants that audience, he can build it. He is a Grammy winner with a real catalogue and a real following. He can book his own tour, put the message on the poster, sell tickets to people who know exactly what they are buying and stand in front of a room that consented. He chose instead to borrow a crowd that came for someone else.
ADVERTISEMENT
Et tu, Sheeran?
Which brings me to Ed Sheeran, who has said nothing.
As of this writing, there has been no public statement from Sheeran addressing what happened at MetLife. And Macklemore remains listed as a special guest for the Sept. 19 show in Philadelphia.
In my business, when someone operating on your platform creates a problem for your customers, you have about a day to say something before your silence becomes the position of record. Sheeran is past that. The silence is no longer merely an absence. It is an answer, particularly after the same performance was allowed to proceed a second night.
I am not asking anyone to be silenced. I want to be very precise about that since the people who will dismiss this piece will need to pretend I said otherwise.
Macklemore has every right to his views and every right to voice them. The First Amendment restrains the government. It does not obligate a promoter to provide a stage or a stadium to host a political message. And it certainly does not obligate a father from New Jersey to buy a ticket to one without being told.
Truth in advertising?
There is a clean solution, and it costs nothing: Disclose it.
Put it at the point of sale. If substantial political advocacy is part of the support act’s set, then say so on the ticket page the way you would disclose an obstructed view or other material information about the event. Let people decide with the information in hand. Anyone confident in a message should be delighted to advertise it.
If the tour will not disclose it, then the tour should pull the act—not because his opinions are forbidden, but because the audience was sold one kind of evening and given another. Either path is honest. Selling a love-song ticket and delivering a political rally in the middle of it is not.
I have no illusion about what happens next. He will be fine. There will be a statement about love and dignity, the tour will roll into Philadelphia, and by November, this will be a footnote in a very long year.
But I would ask him to be accurate about one thing since accuracy is apparently the standard he wants applied to everyone else. He did not speak truth to power at MetLife Stadium. Power was the stage, the lineup, the screens, the microphone and tens of thousands of people who had come to see somebody else.
He had all of it. The family that walked out during his set and came back for the headliner had none of it.
They paid for the evening.
He borrowed it.
Originally published at: jns.org
Originally published at
JNS
ADVERTISEMENT
Related News
Opinions
Religion & Philosophy
Kavannah: A meditation
Rabbi Avi Weiss offers a meditation on the Unetaneh Tokef prayer as the 25th anniversary of 9/11 falls on Rosh Hashanah this year.
Rabbi Avi Weiss
September 10, 2026
Opinions
Columns
Why the Gaza plan is doomed to fail
Mitchell Bard argues Trump’s Gaza peace plan overlooks a crucial piece: reforming Palestinian schools that still teach incitement and hatred.
Mitchell Bard
September 3, 2026
Opinions
Israel & Middle East
Can the U.S. win a bloodless war?
A U.S. sanctions-and-strikes strategy against Iran may be insufficient without defeating the regime that controls its army.
Mitchell Bard
August 26, 2026
Opinions
Religion & Philosophy
Kavannah: A meditation
Rabbi Avi Weiss offers a meditation on the Unetaneh Tokef prayer as the 25th anniversary of 9/11 falls on Rosh Hashanah this year.
Rabbi Avi Weiss
September 10, 2026
Opinions
Columns
Why the Gaza plan is doomed to fail
Mitchell Bard argues Trump’s Gaza peace plan overlooks a crucial piece: reforming Palestinian schools that still teach incitement and hatred.
Mitchell Bard
September 3, 2026
Opinions
Israel & Middle East
Can the U.S. win a bloodless war?
A U.S. sanctions-and-strikes strategy against Iran may be insufficient without defeating the regime that controls its army.
Mitchell Bard
August 26, 2026
Opinions
Columns
Politicians of courage needed. Instead, American Jews have Sen. Schumer
JNS columnist Jonathan S. Tobin says Sen. Chuck Schumer’s response to a hostile Michigan Senate primary reveals where his priorities really lie.
Jonathan S. Tobin
August 13, 2026
© 2026 The Jewish World · Since 1965 - The Capital Region's gateway to Jewish life
Designed and Developed by Ta-Da Studios
© 2026 The Jewish World · Since 1965 - The Capital Region's gateway to Jewish life
Designed and Developed by Ta-Da Studios
© 2026 The Jewish World · Since 1965 - The Capital Region's gateway to Jewish life
Designed and Developed by Ta-Da Studios
© 2026 The Jewish World · Since 1965 - The Capital Region's gateway to Jewish life
Designed and Developed by Ta-Da Studios