May 7, 2025

The situation in K–12 schools is far worse than most people think—and it demands a very different approach from the Jewish community than the usual repertoire of methods for fighting antisemitism.

At the North American Values Institute (NAVI), we recently uncovered video footage from an April school board meeting in Pajaro Valley, California. At that meeting, trustees were debating whether to continue to work with a consultancy that promotes an aggressively radical version of ethnic studies (they voted to keep them).

When Jewish parents expressed their concerns, they were not met with dialogue—they were met with hostility. Trustee Gabriel Medina scolded them, saying: “You only show up to meetings when it’s beneficial for you, so you can tell brown people who they are … The lies that you spewed here tonight were insane … If you want to continue to be segregationists like you were in the past, working against brown kids because you didn’t want to see them in power, I refuse to let that happen.”

Trustee Joy Flynn added: “What I’ve been a little bit taken aback by is the lack of acknowledgment of the economic power historically held by the Jewish community—power that black and brown communities don’t have.”

This wasn’t just an isolated incident. What happened in Pajaro Valley is emblematic of a deeper problem: a radical ideological takeover of school systems across the country. So the question is: What do we actually do about it?

Let me offer a thought experiment. Imagine a white nationalist group puts forward a slate of candidates in a deeply red district. They run as typical America-first Republicans but secretly plan to push a blatantly antisemitic agenda. They win. Once in power, they fire the social studies coordinator, replace them with someone who shares their ideology, and six months later roll out a new curriculum.

That curriculum teaches things like:

• “Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.”
• “Jewish claims of mass murder in what they call the Holocaust should be critically examined.”
• “Liberal American Jews helped orchestrate open-border policies to replace ordinary white people.”

Naturally, the Jewish community springs into action. Statements are issued. Letters are written. Protests are organized. Maybe the worst of the curriculum gets softened. But does anyone really believe the problem is solved as long as white nationalists remain in charge of the school board, planning their next move?

Yet this is exactly how the Jewish community is responding to left-wing extremism in blue district schools: We fight the visible antisemitism but not the ideological radicals driving it. We might succeed in removing offensive language here and there, but we’re losing the war for the institutions themselves.

We fight the visible antisemitism but not the ideological radicals driving it.

A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mailee Smith, “Socialists Seek Control of New York Schools,” lays this out starkly. A radical union faction aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America is seeking to take over New York’s teachers union. Their model is the Chicago Teachers Union, which they view as a success story. Under CTU control, Chicago Public Schools saw academic performance plummet and enrollment collapse.

These same radicals organized anti-Israel protests in November 2023. As Smith warns, “New Yorkers should view Chicago’s experiment with radical union power not as a utopian template, but as a cautionary tale.”

If they succeed in New York, does anyone believe we’ll be able to contain the antisemitism that follows?

I don’t care how many letters to the editor we write, how many Holocaust education programs we create, how many Title VI cases we file, how many sympathetic Democrats we persuade to speak up, or how many police we train. All of those things are worthwhile. But they’re not enough. Because we’ll be fighting symptoms, not causes. If we allow extremists who hate America, Israel and American Jews to control the institutions, we’ve already lost.

The real work is stopping them from gaining power in the first place—and if they do, organizing to defeat them the next time around. That means exposing their ideologies, holding them accountable, and encouraging mainstream candidates, both Jewish and non-Jewish, to run for school board positions and win.

That’s the only way we stand a chance.

---

David Bernstein is CEO of the North American Values Institute and author of “Woke Antisemitism: How a Progressive Ideology Harms Jews.”

Runaway inflation and the collapse of Iran’s national currency have shaken not only the livelihoods of ordinary people but also the foundations of the regime itself, pushing it to the edge of collapse. This economic crisis is rooted in the regime’s aggressive policies—hostility toward Israel and the United States, its nuclear and missile ambitions, and the international isolation that has followed. These have severely devalued the currency, deepened poverty, and brought devastating consequences to Iran’s system of governance.

What has destabilized the regime more than anything else is spiraling inflation. It erodes the national currency’s value, weakens purchasing power, and drives poverty throughout society. Inflation is defined by chronic price instability and sustained economic disruption. Although the Islamic Republic outwardly claims to fight inflation, its survival depends on a corrupt, rent-seeking economic model that actually benefits from it. The regime uses inflation to both plunder national wealth and fund its costly regional aggression. Over the past 45 years, inflation has hollowed out the national currency—turning it into one of the weakest in the world, despite Iran’s immense oil and gas reserves. As a result, poverty has deepened, and much of the middle class has collapsed into economic despair.

Inflation and Taxation: Two Blades of the Same Scissors

In the eyes of the regime, taxation is less about public service and more about sustaining its rule. Its impact on ordinary citizens is minimal in terms of services, while primarily serving the regime’s financial needs. Together, inflation and taxation act like two blades of a pair of scissors—slashing people’s purchasing power and financial security. These tools help fund the regime’s militarism and anti-Western stance, placing a double burden on the population.

Warmongering as the Chief Obstacle to Economic Development

Rooted in medieval dogma and incapable of meeting the urgent economic and cultural needs of its people, the regime relies on foreign aggression and domestic repression to maintain its grip on power. But today, this warmongering strategy has become a noose around its own neck.

The regime’s militaristic doctrine rests on three main pillars: supporting proxy militias across the region, expanding its ballistic missile program, and advancing its nuclear ambitions

The High Cost of Anti-Western Hostility

In a system built on enmity toward the West, the people have no real voice—only the burden of growing poverty. The roots of Iran’s inflation crisis can be traced directly to domestic and foreign policies shaped by this hostile ideology.

Key factors include:

• The growing dominance of the IRGC, the Supreme Leader’s office, and their affiliated conglomerates in the economy, sidelining the private sector
• Deep institutional corruption
• Chronic budget deficits and reckless monetary expansion
• Massive ideological propaganda budgets
• Billions spent on missile development and nuclear pursuits, all at the cost of basic economic health
• Patronage networks and rent distribution both at home and abroad
• Wasted resources and severe mismanagement

These are the direct and indirect outcomes of the regime’s militaristic and ideological priorities.

The Historic Collapse of the National Currency

Economic data shows that between 1979 and 2025, the value of Iran’s national currency fell by about 99.99%. In real terms, one unit of currency in 2025 is worth just 1/10, 675 of its 1979 value. Over the same period, prices increased more than 10,600 times.

Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar has appreciated 13,570-fold in Iran—outpacing inflation itself. This gap is due to the rial’s plummeting value, rising uncertainty, capital flight, loss of trust in the currency, increased demand for assets like dollars, speculative behavior, and the flood of excess liquidity into informal markets like gold and foreign exchange.

Inflation: The Alarm Bell of Political Collapse

Although the regime has long exploited inflation for its benefit, the economy is now too damaged to recover. Inflation has become the death knell of the Iranian economy—and the collapse of the economy could soon lead to the collapse of the regime.

Although the regime has long exploited inflation for its benefit, the economy is now too damaged to recover.

A Historic Crossroads

The Islamic Republic now faces a defining choice: It must either retreat from its ideological positions—particularly its nuclear and missile ambitions and hostility toward the West—or face devastating consequences. Without change, Iran is likely to face military strikes that could destroy large portions of its nuclear, military, and even economic infrastructure. As foreign currency reserves shrink, GDP declines, national income collapses and structural crises deepen, both inflation and the dollar will skyrocket—accelerating the final unraveling of the economy.

Conversely, if the regime abandons its aggressive posture, the country could begin a path toward economic recovery by attracting investment, stabilizing the Rial, and restoring public confidence.

But even if the Islamic Republic were to choose to renounce its ideological dogmas, could it survive the anger of a people broken by more than forty years of repression, massacres and misery?

---

Hamid Enayat is a political scientist, specializing on the topic of Iran, who collaborates with the Iranian democratic opposition (NCRI).

On May 8th the world will mark the 80th anniversary of VE (Victory in Europe) Day. The defeat of Nazi Germany by the allied forces marked a historic moment, not only ending the Second World War in Europe but ultimately ending the genocide of European Jewry.

On a personal note, my parents, who themselves had escaped the hand of Hitler, would come to the United States in 1938. Wanting to make sure that I as a very young child would remember VE Day, we joined all our neighbors on that May date in 1945, decorating our bikes and wagons in red, white, and blue, waving the American flag as we paraded around our Richmond, Virginia community.

These past eight decades would be the most transformative in modern Jewish history, as Jews not only confronted the horrors of the Shoah but had the opportunity to reclaim Jewish sovereignty with the establishment of the State of Israel.

Historians have described the succeeding years as one of Jewish exceptionalism, as the lessons of the Holocaust would create an international recognition concerning the standing and status of Jews. The founding of Israel would give to Jews a renewed sense of hope and pride. At the outset of this new moment in time Israel would be seen by governments as an essential and appropriate response to the events of 1933-1945.  

Jewish leaders fully appreciated the necessity of unpacking the social and political forces that contributed to the rise in the 20th century of authoritarian leaders. Realizing that there may well be future autocratic leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, the AJC in 1950 funded the research leading to the publication of the “The Authoritarian Personality.”

In the aftermath of nearly half a century of death and destruction, a type of democratic renaissance would emerge covering the second half of the 20th century and the early years of this century. This time frame would see the acceleration of human rights, experience a period of global engagement, and entertain the growth of democracy.  For America’s Jews, in particular, this period would be defined as the “civil religion” of Judaism, where Jews would memorialize the Shoah, successfully build a campaign for human rights for Soviet Jews, and advance the case for Israel on the international stage, even as they participated in broader initiatives by advocating for civil rights for others. It would mark a moment in time when antisemitism would be recorded at its lowest levels.

This “love affair” that Jews appeared to enjoy during this post-Second World War era appears to be coming to an end. Are we now returning to an earlier age of the human condition, as authoritarianism once again expands, as antisemitism becomes more ingrained, and as class and social division accelerate? Jews, among others, are becoming increasingly concerned about these problematic trends. 

Historian Simon Montefiore has characterized this unique moment in history, describing it as the end of this era:

“… Humanity’s creeping and possibly inexorable return to a time where people around the world aren’t enjoying the fruits of liberty and democracy, but instead are subject to the mercurial, self-interested actions of dynastic rule.”

A recent Freedom House report suggests a political return to authoritarian governance:

“The present threat to democracy is the product of 16 consecutive years of decline in global freedom. A total of 60 countries suffered declines over the past year… As of today, some 38 percent of the global population live in Not Free countries, the highest proportion since 1997.”

If, indeed, we are in a new moment, what might this mean for America and its Jewish community?

We owe it to the millions of victims who perished at the hands of the Nazis to make people across the globe understand the events as well as the historical significance of the Holocaust. A recent study across all 50 states revealed not only a profound lack of knowledge especially among younger generations but a belief held by “nearly 20% of Millennials and Gen Z…who feel the Jews caused the Holocaust.”

When it comes to a working knowledge of American government, 70% of those interviewed in a 2024 study failed a basic civics education quiz. A citizenry unfamiliar with the principles and practices of democracy represents a prescription for the undoing of this republic. 

Similarly, few Americans are familiar with the core elements of this nation’s history. An informed constituency represents a core requirement for a democracy to flourish. Further, we should remind ourselves that minorities, including Jews, can only thrive in a democratic society when its citizenry is both informed and engaged.

Further, we have a unique opportunity, especially at a time of increased Jewish hatred and anti-Zionist expression to reintroduce the value of interreligious engagement and intergroup dialogue. There is a profound lack of knowledge about Jews, Judaism and Israel. A 2019 Pew Study noted that over 70% of Americans have little to no understanding of Judaism. Only 19% of Americans described themselves as “knowledgeable” about Israel and the Middle East, reminding us of the significant effort ahead to effectively build an informed and supportive pro-Israel constituency.

For the first time in decades, support for Israel among Americans has dropped below 50% (46%), further reminding us of the educational and advocacy opportunities that the pro-Israel community must develop.

Upon reflection:

As we observe and remember this 80th anniversary, it affords us an opportunity to reframe our communal agenda in advancing a concise and consolidated effort designed to educate our own community about the trend lines of history and their implications for our security and freedom and for Israel’s political well-being. This moment also informs us about the broader tasks that await us in advocating for civics education and for the teaching of modern history and for promoting dialogue with others in broadening their knowledge of Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Israel.

---

Dr. Steven Windmueller is an Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Studies at the Jack H. Skirball Campus of HUC-JIR, Los Angeles. His writings can be found on his website: www.thewindreport.com.

Eighty years after the end of the Holocaust, the mayor of Amsterdam has apologized for the crucial role the city’s administration played in the mass deportation of Dutch Jews to Auschwitz. Do such apologies serve any purpose? And has the current mayor genuinely learned the lessons of the Nazi genocide?

In July 1942, the German occupation authorities began the mass deportation of Amsterdam’s Jews to the death camps. The municipal administration, including the police and railway workers, actively collaborated. 

City officials also participated in the later hunts for Jews who were hiding in attics and elsewhere, including Anne Frank and her family. Altogether, at least 80% of Holland’s 75,000 Jews were murdered, which was the highest rate for any German-occupied country in Western Europe.

In a recent speech marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, Mayor Femke Halsema acknowledged that her predecessors “horribly abandoned [the city’s] Jewish residents.” She said “Amsterdam’s government was, when it mattered, not heroic, not determined and not merciful.”

Mayor Halsema noted, “Administrators and officials were not only cold and formalistic, but even willing to cooperate with the occupier. That was an indispensable step in the isolation, humiliation, deportation, dehumanization and murdering of 60,000 Amsterdam Jews.”

Five years ago, Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte also apologized for his country’s abandonment of the Jews. “With the last remaining survivors among us, I apologize on behalf of the government for the actions of the government at the time,” Rutte said.

Public apologies of this sort have a certain symbolic value, since they represent a belated but necessary acknowledgment of historical truth. Moreover, apologies can help set a society’s moral parameters and thus influence future behavior in times of crisis.

Whether or not the current mayor has truly learned from the mistakes of the past is another question. 

In her speech last month, Mayor Halsema said, “Antisemitism wasn’t brought to the Netherlands by the German occupier, and it didn’t disappear after the liberation. There has always been hatred against Jews—also in this town—and there still is.”

All true, but how did Mayor Halsema herself respond when antisemitic mob violence erupted in her city? On November 7, 2024, more than one hundred masked Muslim extremists carried out coordinated attacks on Israeli Jews who had attended an Amsterdam soccer match. According to the Amsterdam police, the violence was coordinated through social media posts in which mob leaders directed their followers to “hunt Jews.”

The Israeli victims were “ambushed by gangs of masked assailants who shouted pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel slogans while they hunted, beat and harassed them,” the Times of Israel reported. Ten Israelis were injured, and hundreds more hid in nearby buildings for hours to escape the mobs.

At a news conference the next day, Mayor Halsema called the attack “a pogrom,” noting the careful planning and the widespread extent of the violence. Other Dutch political figures likewise called it a pogrom. Ten days later, however, the mayor said she regretted using the word “pogrom,” because several Israeli soccer fans reportedly insulted some Arab fans; therefore, Halsema said, “both sides” shared the blame. 

Pressure from Halsema’s colleagues in the far-left Groenlinks (Green) Party may have influenced her retraction. Note that some Groenlinks parliamentarians publicly declared that “the fascism of the Israeli state” was to blame for the October 7 Hamas massacres.

In December 2024, five of the Amsterdam pogromists were convicted of incitement and assault. Yet the maximum sentence handed down was just six months in prison, which was given to a convict who was identified by the media only as “Sefa O.” He played a “leading role” in the pogrom, and videotape was shown in court in which he could be seen chasing Jews, punching them, knocking them down, and kicking them in the head. Another thug, identified as “Umutcan A.,” was sentenced to just one month in jail for beating up Jews.

In March 2025, three more of the attackers were convicted, and likewise given slaps on the wrist. “Mounir M.” was sentenced to six weeks in jail for coordinating the assaults on WhatsApp. The longest sentence was just three months in prison, given to “Cenk D.,” who directed attackers via Whats App, wrote “A good Jew is a dead Jew” in the group chat, and distributed a photo of Anne Frank that the judges said trivialized the Holocaust.

The Nieuw Israelietisch Weekblad, a leading Dutch Jewish newspaper, criticized the sentences as much too lenient. Former parliamentary candidate Femke Sirag characterized them as “joke punishments for serious, subversive antisemitic violence.”

There are three concrete steps that Mayor Halsema should take now. First, she should acknowledge that the violence did resemble a pogrom and–based on the attackers’ own words–was obviously motivated by antisemitism. Second, she should call for the release of the attackers’ names; there is no reason violent antisemites should enjoy the shield of anonymity. And third, she should take a portion of the $28-million that she has allotted for “promoting Jewish life” in Amsterdam and use it to pay restitution to the pogrom victims.

These three steps will not erase the black cloud of shame that hangs over Amsterdam’s political and legal authorities for their mishandling of the November 2024 attacks. But such actions would at least demonstrate that the mayor’s Holocaust apology was not just hollow rhetoric. 

---

Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His book “The Road to October 7: Hamas, the Holocaust, and the Eternal War Against the Jews” will be published on October 1, 2025, by The Jewish Publication Society / University of Nebraska Press.

We live in a time when disagreement often feels dangerous.

When we hear an opinion we disagree with, there is pressure to respond immediately.

To correct it, to debate it, and oftentimes to defeat it.

To let an opposing viewpoint pass silently can feel almost like betrayal to our own.

But often, the moment we rush to challenge, we turn a conversation into a contest.

A space for reflection becomes a battlefield.

Someone must be right, someone must be wrong.

And because most people do not enjoy being wrong, these moments rarely change minds.

They harden them.

The strange thing is that while we are shouting at each other to evolve, we are making real evolution harder.

---

The truth is that disagreement, handled poorly, isolates us.

Handled wisely, it can evolve us.

The wisest thing one can do is not to argue, but to listen.

To accept that someone else’s viewpoint is their own, shaped by their experiences, their struggles, their hopes.

To resist the reflex to correct, and instead to wonder:

Their viewpoint is as valid to them as mine is to me. What am I missing and how can I integrate this new information?

---

The other evening, I was having a conversation with someone who spoke earnestly about the importance of “acknowledging his privilege” as a white man.

He believed it was a moral responsibility, a way to work toward a more equitable world.

I have a different viewpoint.

I believe there is a difference between having gratitude for the good things in your life and apologizing for them.

I believe that if we demand people apologize for their success, we risk teaching resentment instead of resilience.

We risk making gratitude a weapon, not a bridge.

And yet, I did not need to say any of this.

Because I saw where he was coming from.

He was trying, sincerely, to live his values. To create a bridge that, in his experience of life, has proven itself to work.

He was trying to reach toward the same good future, even if he was walking a different path to get there.

Sometimes that recognition is enough. Besides, I was kind of tired and I didn’t have the energy to thoughtfully and respectfully engage. I know that sounds like a joke, but it isn’t. 

Listening without judgment takes energy.

Keeping the ego in check takes energy.

Reevaluating personal beliefs takes energy.

Part of knowing when to engage is knowing when you have the capacity to do so.

---

Of course, I would love for others to see the world as I do.

I believe that supporting those around us, building each other up instead of blaming, creates stronger bridges across difference.

But progress does not demand that everyone agree.

It demands that we stay open even when we don’t.

If the only way we know how to engage with disagreement is to try to win, we will lose the deeper chance to connect.

We will lose the possibility of learning something, even from those we think we already understand.

---

If you find yourself in a conversation where you disagree, consider:

• Accepting that a different viewpoint exists, and that it is not your job to defeat it.

• Trying to understand that viewpoint fully before deciding whether it threatens or expands your own.

• And only then, if it feels right, sharing your own view — not to win, but to see if something wiser can be built between you.

And if not, if no synthesis is possible, to let it be.

Two people, two lenses on the world.

Both trying, in their own way, to walk toward the good.

---

Listening across difference asks something hard of us.

It asks us to set down our pride.

It asks us to allow for complexity.

It asks us to let the conversation sometimes be unfinished.

And it asks us to trust that the slow work of understanding does more to change the world than the loud work of winning arguments.

In the end, the future will not belong to those who shouted the loudest.

It will belong to those who learned how to listen when it was hardest.

It will belong to those who chose patience over pride.

Connection over correction.

Curiosity over conquest.

And it will belong to those who understood that disagreement is not an end to dialogue.

It is the beginning of something deeper — if we are willing to stay in it long enough to find it.

---

Jonathan Beninson is an analog guy in a digital world who has started several companies and mentors entrepreneurs and leaders around the globe.