American Jews and the Progressive Betrayal
How Jews Built Progressivism and Then Progressivism Turned on Them
Preface
A note before you begin: truth does not care about our comfort. I wrote this as a Jew who loves this community and who can no longer stay silent about what I see happening to it. Everything in this article is documented, sourced, and verifiable. Nothing here is polemic. It is evidence. If it unsettles you, sit with that feeling before you dismiss it. The most important truths are always the hardest ones to face. Look up every source. Go deeper. Then decide what you believe. Every generation of Jews has faced a moment when comfort and truth pulled in opposite directions. This is ours. What we do with what we know, what we say, what we refuse to stay silent about, will determine what kind of Jewish future our children and their children inherit. They will not remember our politics. They will remember whether we had the courage to see clearly when it mattered.
“Antisemitism is history’s great shape-shifter: it wore religious clothing in the Middle Ages, nationalist clothing in the nineteenth century, socialist clothing in the twentieth. Now it wears progressive clothing.” — Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, House of Lords, 2018.8
Columbia University, 1922.
Administrators pass around memos about keeping Jews out. They study Harvard’s methods, Yale’s techniques, Princeton’s strategies. The approaches are sophisticated. Psychological tests measuring “character.” Geographic diversity favoring regions without Jews. The goal is limiting Jewish enrollment while maintaining deniability about what they’re actually doing.1
Columbia University, 2024.
Students take over Hamilton Hall. They issue manifestos. Zionism is incompatible with progressive values. Jewish students who support Israel don’t belong in social justice movements. The administration waits days before calling police.
Same building. Same school. One hundred years apart.
The parallel makes people uncomfortable. They’ll tell you it’s totally different. One was about who Jews are. The other is about what Israel does. One was antisemitism. The other is anti-colonialism. Completely opposite, right?
Yet look at what happens in both cases. Jews are allowed to belong, but only if we surrender core parts of our Jewish identity. In 1922, that meant dropping our ethnic distinctiveness and assimilating into Anglo-Saxon norms. In 2024, it means abandoning Zionism and supporting ‘Palestinian liberation,’ a cause built on a name the Romans imposed on Judea as punishment after crushing our revolts, to erase our connection to the land. The excuse changes. The mechanism stays the same.
How did we get here? How did a movement that Jews built become the main place where people question whether Jews should exist as a people?
When Being Progressive Meant Being Jewish
American Jews didn’t just join the progressive movement. We built it. In the 1920s, Jews were 10 percent of American socialists while being only 3 percent of the population.2 In 1920, 38 percent of Jews voted for Socialist Eugene Debs. By 1944, 90 percent voted for FDR.3 This wasn’t strategy. It was who we became. Being Democrat became as Jewish as supporting Israel or sending kids to Hebrew school.
It made sense. Eastern European Jews who came between 1880 and 1920 worked in sweatshops, lived in poverty, faced constant antisemitism.4 They knew what it meant to be on the bottom. They built the garment unions. They organized. They fought harder for workers’ rights and civil rights than their numbers alone would suggest.
Reform Judaism had spent decades trying to fit into Protestant America. Eastern European Jews brought socialism from the old country. Put those together and you got a community that believed in social justice, aligned with labor movements, and increasingly talked about tikkun olam.
Except tikkun olam never meant what we use it for today.
How Tikkun Olam Got Hijacked
For two thousand years, from the Mishnah around 200 CE onwards, mipnei tikkun ha-olam meant something specific: “for public policy” or “for social order.” Rabbis used it when they made practical changes to Jewish law to prevent problems in the community. Like making sure a husband had to actually deliver divorce papers to his wife so he couldn’t claim they were divorced while she was still legally married and couldn’t remarry. That was mipnei tikkun ha-olam, fixing a specific problem inside the Jewish community.5
Even in sixteenth-century Kabbalah, where tikkun got mystical dimensions about elevating spiritual fragments through mitzvot, it stayed rooted in Jewish covenant, Jewish practice, Jewish relationship with G-d. You repaired the world through prayer, Torah study, keeping commandments. Not through marches or lobbying.
The transformation into a universal social justice mandate happened in modern America, especially in Reform Judaism trying to balance tradition with Enlightenment ideals and fitting into Christian-majority society. As Reform communities loosened their connection to halakhah and covenant, tikkun olam became a replacement. It let you feel Jewish about political activism even when you’d dropped traditional Jewish practice. One scholar calls it “a therapeutic creed: a way to feel morally Jewish without practicing Jewishly.”6
This flipped everything upside down. The Hebrew prophets that progressive Jews constantly quote? They were fierce particularists. They spoke to Israel. They demanded the Jewish community be faithful to the covenant and pursue justice as a prerequisite for survival. Yes, their ethics had universal implications, but that came from and through Jewish particularity, not instead of it. The prophets never said Jews should drop being distinctively Jewish to pursue abstract universal justice. They said be better Jews, not stop being Jewish.
Progressive Judaism reverses this. Universal values come first. Jewish solidarity comes second. Being distinctively Jewish looks like embarrassing tribalism you need to get over.
Look what this produced. In Pew’s 2020 survey, most politically liberal Jews said working for social justice is essential to being Jewish. Caring about Israel? Essential to barely a third. Liberal Jews reported way weaker connections to Jewish community.7
For many liberal Jews now, universal social justice defines being Jewish more than Jewish community, practice, or connection to other Jews. Jewish identity becomes the Democratic Party platform. Whatever Democrats support automatically becomes Jewish values, regardless of whether it has anything to do with actual Jewish tradition.
Every Democratic position gets laundered through tikkun olam as authentic Judaism. Unlimited abortion rights. Open borders. Gender ideology. Critical race theory applications that condemn Israel. All Jewish values. The term is hollowed out, just a shell you can pack with whatever progressive politics demands.
Progressive Judaism says it champions universalism. But watch how that actually works. Black, Latino, LGBTQ, indigenous identities get celebrated, protected, institutionally supported. Distinct cultural practices, separate organizations, political mobilization around these identities all get progressive blessing.
Why are Jews specifically supposed to drop our connection to fellow Jews while other groups legitimately keep theirs? What version of progressivism says Jewish acceptance requires Jewish self-negation while other groups’ self-assertion gets celebrated? There’s no coherent theory. This is self-abnegation pretending to be ethics.
We gave everything. We made progressivism central to Jewish identity. We hollowed out Jewish particularity for universal causes. We taught our kids being a good Jew meant being a good progressive. We built the infrastructure, provided the ideas, supplied the energy.
And then progressivism decided it didn’t need us anymore. Or more precisely, it needed our silence.
How Antisemitic Wealth Captured Progressive Politics
The Ford Foundation sits on wealth from Henry Ford. Not just any antisemite. The most influential American antisemite of the twentieth century.
Ford bought the Dearborn Independent in 1918. In May 1920, the paper started a 91-week series called The International Jew. Week after week blaming Jews for everything. Strikes. Financial scandals. Agricultural problems. The Bolsheviks. World War I. Moral decay.9
Ford republished the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that tsarist forgery about Jews plotting world domination, and presented it as real news. His staff compiled the articles into four volumes. They distributed between 200,000 and 500,000 copies of just the first edition. Ford deliberately never copyrighted it so anyone could republish it. It got translated into at least sixteen languages.10
The Nazis loved it. Himmler called Ford in 1924 “one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters.” Hitler kept a life-size portrait of Ford behind his desk in Munich. In Mein Kampf, Hitler praised Ford as “a single great man” who understood the Jewish question. Hitler told a Detroit News reporter in 1931, “I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.”11 The Nazis gave Ford their Grand Cross of the German Eagle in 1938, their highest honor for foreigners, specifically for his services to the Third Reich.12
Ford’s antisemitic propaganda circulated in Germany throughout the 1920s and 1930s, helping create the atmosphere that made the Holocaust possible. Jewish historians document how The International Jew shaped Nazi ideology by giving American capitalist credibility to conspiracy theories about Jewish world domination.
After boycotts hurt sales and a libel lawsuit threatened exposure, Ford issued an apology in 1927 and closed the paper. The retraction was probably insincere. Ford never hired Jews for office positions at Ford Motor Company his whole life, only for physical labor. And The International Jew kept circulating. During World War II, Germans distributed Spanish translations in Mexico City. In the 1940s, the Christian Nationalist Crusade promised to bring it back from “Jew-controlled obscurity.” White nationalist websites today still cite Ford.
The Ford Foundation acknowledges this history. In 2023, president Darren Walker issued a statement condemning contemporary antisemitism and Henry Ford’s role in it. “There can be no reconciliation without atonement, no justice without accountability,” Walker wrote.13
The acknowledgment matters. Few institutions confront their antisemitic origins this directly. But here’s what makes it complicated. Congressional hearings in 2003 revealed Ford Foundation grants supported organizations whose representatives at the 2001 Durban Conference distributed materials showing Hitler with the caption “What if I had won? There would be NO Israel.” The foundation was funding groups connected to a conference where anti-Zionism became open advocacy for eliminating Israel. The foundation acknowledged they failed at vetting and promised reforms. NGO Monitor kept finding ongoing ties to anti-Israel advocacy groups.14
So, you have wealth from America’s most influential twentieth-century antisemite, managed by a foundation that publicly condemns its founder’s antisemitism, simultaneously funding modern movements against Jewish self-determination.
What the Foundations Funded: From Mengele to BDS
The path from eugenics to boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) funding is even more direct with Rockefeller and Carnegie money. The Carnegie Institution funded the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor starting in 1910.15 The ERO became America’s top eugenics research center. Its superintendent, Harry Laughlin, gave fake expert testimony to Congress portraying Eastern European Jewish immigrants as genetically inferior, prone to insanity, crime and feeblemindedness.
Laughlin’s testimony directly influenced the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.16 The law created restrictive quotas specifically designed to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe where most Jewish emigrants came from. Those quotas trapped millions of European Jews trying to flee Nazi persecution in the 1930s and 1940s. American consulates strictly enforced the quotas even as evidence of genocide mounted. The restrictive policies contributed to Holocaust death tolls by blocking escape routes. Carnegie money paid for the pseudo-science justifying it.
Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement with German eugenics is even worse. The foundation funded German eugenics research extensively during the 1920s and early 1930s, continuing grants even as Nazi racial policies became explicit. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated about $410,000 to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926 alone, Rockefeller gave a quarter million dollars to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.17
Ernst Rüdin worked at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. He became director. He wrote the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, creating the legal framework for forced sterilization programs that ultimately affected 400,000 Germans.18 The institute’s Brain Research Institute, which got Rockefeller funding, did experiments using brains from euthanasia victims. Josef Mengele was part of this network before his transfer to Auschwitz. There, he conducted murderous experiments on twins, frequently selecting them during ramp selections upon arrival.
Rockefeller Foundation officials later claimed ignorance about how their grants would be used. Archival evidence shows ongoing communications and site visits suggesting they knew more than they admitted. Foundation correspondence shows officials knew German researchers pursued racial theories incompatible with American science but continued funding based on institutional prestige.
Today, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, successor to the original Rockefeller philanthropies, has given grants to organizations supporting BDS campaigns. Documented grants to groups advocating boycott, divestment and sanctions targeting Israel have drawn scrutiny from pro-Israel organizations and Jewish community leaders.19
Different Excuses, Same Exclusion
Between 1920 and 1945, elite American universities developed sophisticated ways to limit Jewish enrollment. Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton led the effort. They couldn’t explicitly exclude Jews after limiting other groups had sparked criticism, so they invented neutral-sounding criteria that achieved the same results.20
Geographic diversity favored applicants from regions with few Jews. Legacy preferences benefited Protestant families whose kids had attended for generations. Character assessments penalized Jewish applicants as insufficiently refined or too ambitious. Psychological testing supposedly measured leadership but reliably scored Jewish applicants lower. The machinery was elegant. No explicit ethnic quotas. Just meritocratic standards that mysteriously produced the desired demographics.
Medical schools were even more brutal. Jewish enrollment in medical programs exceeded 20 percent in the 1920s despite Jews being only 3 percent of the population. Medical school admissions committees found this intolerable. They imposed quotas explicitly in some cases, implicitly through character requirements in others. By 1945, Jewish medical school enrollment had been cut to 12 percent. Schools defended this as maintaining professional standards and preventing overcrowding.21
These quotas ended in the 1950s and 1960s. Not because institutions had a moral awakening. Because Jewish organizational pressure, post-Holocaust sentiment and anti-discrimination laws made them legally and politically untenable. For forty years, elite institutions systematically limited Jewish participation while maintaining meritocratic rhetoric.22
Now watch what’s happening on those same campuses. The mechanisms change but the pattern recurs. Students for Justice in Palestine organizes campaigns making Jewish students who support Israel unwelcome. They don’t call for excluding Jews explicitly. They call for excluding Zionists, defining Zionism as white supremacy and settler colonialism incompatible with progressive values.23
Since roughly 80 percent of American Jews consider Israel important to their Jewish identity, this effectively excludes most Jews from progressive spaces. The exclusion isn’t religious or ethnic. It’s political. Jews can participate, but only if they publicly disavow Zionism and embrace narratives calling Jewish national self-determination racism.
The parallel is precise. In the 1920s, Jews could get admitted by demonstrating Anglo-Saxon character and minimizing ethnic identity. In the 2020s, Jews can participate by abandoning connection to Israel and embracing anti-Zionist politics.
Both eras make Jewish belonging conditional on renouncing core parts of being Jewish. Both maintain neutral-sounding ideological justifications. Both produce functional exclusion of Jews who won’t comply.
University administrators respond similarly across both eras. They express concern about campus climate. They convene dialogue sessions. They issue statements affirming commitment to inclusion. They avoid substantive action that would anger activated constituencies. However, at Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, administrators waited days before addressing encampments or disruptions targeting Jewish students. They cited free speech while ignoring parallel conduct toward other groups that would trigger an immediate response.24
The Infrastructure of Jewish Exclusion
This student activism doesn’t organize itself. Someone provides infrastructure, materials, training, coordination.
It’s easy to follow the money.
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) operates chapters on over 300 campuses across North America. They coordinate national action days, distribute protest materials, organize legal support for arrested activists, maintain sophisticated communications. This requires substantial resources.25
Their primary sponsor is American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). Congressional investigation and NGO monitoring research revealed AMP’s connections to organizations designated as terrorist entities and individuals convicted of providing material support to Hamas.26 AMP provides SJP with organizational infrastructure, training materials, protest strategies, coordination between chapters.
A 2024 House Oversight Committee letter to National SJP detailed how campus chapters got guidance from AMP-affiliated organizers with documented connections to designated terrorist organizations. The investigation found evidence of coordination between SJP, AMP and other groups advocating violent resistance.27
Beyond direct support, SJP benefits from foundation funding to Palestinian advocacy groups that provide resources, speakers, coordination. The money flows through intermediary organizations making direct connections hard to trace, but the infrastructure support is demonstrable.
Jewish students face organized, well-funded activism that gets presented as grassroots undergraduate concern about Palestinian rights. However, its institutional infrastructure is supported by organizations with documented extremist connections and funded through progressive philanthropic networks.
When Jewish students report feeling unsafe or excluded, they’re told they’re exaggerating, being hypersensitive or weaponizing antisemitism accusations to silence Palestinian advocacy. Yet these same institutions maintain extensive bureaucracies responding to marginalization claims from every other group. Jewish students face unique skepticism about their experiences because the activism targeting them operates under this progressive cover.
A Question Progressive Jews Must Answer
When Harvard’s president testified before Congress about campus antisemitism, she couldn’t clearly state that calling for Jewish genocide would violate university policy. She explained that context mattered. Whether threatening Jewish students was harassment depended on circumstances.²⁸
Imagine if she’d said that about any other group. Imagine if calling for genocide of Black students or indigenous students required contextual analysis before determining whether that violated policy. Sounds absurd, right? Universities would immediately condemn such rhetoric without qualification.
Jewish students alone face this bizarre conditional protection where institutions carefully parse whether threatening them technically constitutes actionable harassment or falls within protected political speech. This isn’t accidental. It reflects underlying assumptions about which groups merit unconditional protection and which groups’ safety is negotiable based on politics.
Progressive Jews, we are part of this story too. When does pattern recognition finally outweigh our long-standing loyalties?
We have spent generations building these progressive institutions. We supplied the ideas, the organizational energy, the money. We made social justice activism central to American Jewish identity. We taught our children that being a good Jew means being a good progressive.
And now those same institutions treat our concerns as uniquely suspect. They fund organizations that delegitimize Israel. They apply standards to Jewish students they would never apply to others. They insist criticism of Israel is not antisemitism while branding Zionism as racism.
The Democratic Party increasingly treats us as a reliable constituency it can safely ignore.²⁹ Our alarms about antisemitism are dismissed as right-wing talking points or Israeli propaganda. Meanwhile, the party courts voters and organizations whose platforms openly characterize Israel as an apartheid state.
We can tell ourselves this does not represent true progressivism, that these are distortions or temporary aberrations. But at what point does the lived reality of these institutions outweigh our idealized vision of what progressivism should be?
Every political coalition eventually discards its weakest members when convenience demands it. We became the weakest link in the progressive coalition the moment opposition to Israel became central to its identity. We cannot be both disposable and essential.
This is not a call to abandon progressive causes. It is a call to stop conflating political affiliation with religious identity. We can support justice without pretending these institutions treat us fairly. We can engage the world without accepting Jewish vulnerability as acceptable collateral damage.
What We Owe the Generations After Us
There is a prayer Jews have recited for centuries at moments of communal reckoning. Hineni. Here I am. It is the answer Abraham gave when called to the hardest thing he had ever faced. It is the answer the prophets gave when the word of God came to them not with comfort but with demand. It was never a passive statement. It was a declaration of presence at a moment that required witness.
This is our hineni moment.
The Hebrew prophets we so often invoke demanded something precise: justice within the covenant community first. They insisted that the people of Israel treat one another fairly as the prerequisite for any claim to universal righteousness. They understood that a community abandoning internal solidarity while proclaiming universal ethics was practicing self-deception. The prophets were not universalists who happened to be Jewish. They were Jews whose particular covenant with the particular God of Israel gave their universal claims whatever weight they carried.
Tikkun olam, in its authentic meaning, was never an invitation to self-erasure. It was a call to repair what is broken inside the covenant community so that the community could stand before the world with integrity. You cannot be a witness to justice if you have abandoned the people you are sworn to protect. You cannot repair the world by dismantling the community through which repair flows.
We are at a generational hinge. The decisions made now, the silences kept or broken, the loyalties examined or left unexamined, will determine what kind of Jewish community our children inherit. Not what politics they hold. What courage they inherit. Whether they receive from us a community that named what was happening to it, or one that looked away because looking cost too much.
Every generation of Jews has been asked to carry something forward through circumstances that threatened to make carrying impossible. They carried it anyway. Through exile. Through inquisition. Through pogrom. Through genocide. They carried the covenant, the memory, the insistence on Jewish continuity, not because it was comfortable but because they understood that Jewish disappearance was not an abstraction. It was a loss the world could not afford and that we had no right to permit.
We are not being asked to cross a sea or wander a wilderness. We are being asked to see clearly. To say what we see. To refuse the comfort of strategic blindness when our community's future is being negotiated without our honest participation.
That is the inheritance we owe them. Not our politics. Not our institutional loyalties. Not our need to be welcomed at tables that have decided our presence is conditional.
Our clarity. Our courage. Our refusal to be silent when silence is what they are counting on.
Hineni.
Notes
1. Stephen Steinberg, “How Jewish Quotas Began,” Commentary Magazine, September 1971, https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/; Inside Higher Ed, “How the Ivy League’s Jewish Quotas Shaped Higher Education,” 2022, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/22/how-ivy-leagues-jewish-quotas-shaped-higher-education.
2. Arthur Goren, New York Jews and the Quest for Community (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983); Ezra Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
4. Goren, New York Jews and the Quest for Community.
5. SAPIR Journal, “Judaism and the Politics of Tikkun Olam,” Spring 2021, https://sapirjournal.org/social-justice/2021/judaism-and-the-politics-of-tikkun-olam/.
6. Future of Jewish, “It’s Time to Remove Tikkun Olam from Our Vocabulary,” December 13, 2025, https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/its-time-to-remove-tikkun-olam-from.
7. Pew Research Center, “Jewish Americans in 2020,” May 11, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/.
8. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Speech in House of Lords debate on antisemitism, September 13, 2018, https://rabbisacks.org/videos/antisemitism-becomes-dangerous/.
9. American Jewish Archives, “Henry Ford and Antisemitism: The Notorious Dearborn Independent,” April 28, 2021, https://www.americanjewisharchives.org/snapshots/henry-ford-and-antisemitism-the-notorious-dearborn-independent/; PBS, “Ford’s Anti-Semitism,” American Experience, 2017, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/henryford-antisemitism/.
10. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Antisemitism and Henry Ford’s ‘The International Jew,’” Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2025, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-and-henry-fords-international-jew; Neil Baldwin, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate (New York: PublicAffairs, 2001).
11. Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006); Baldwin, Henry Ford and the Jews.
12. American Jewish Historical Society, “Henry Ford: Inadvertent Nazi Collaborator,” 2025, https://ajhs.org/exhibit/henry-ford-inadvertent-nazi-collaborator.
13. Forward, “The Head of the Ford Foundation Condemned Antisemitism. Here’s Why That’s a Huge Deal,” September 26, 2023, https://forward.com/culture/562006/ford-foundation-darren-walker-antisemitism-statement-henry-ford/.
14. NGO Monitor, “Ford Foundation,” 2003, https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/ford_foundation/; U.S. Congress, Hearings on Ford Foundation Grant Practices: Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 2003.
15. Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003); Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985).
16. Black, War Against the Weak; Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics.
17. Black, War Against the Weak; Paul Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
18. Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics.
19. Tablet Magazine, “How Rockefeller Brothers Fund Came to Lend Its Legitimacy and Money to Groups That Push Boycotting Israel,” 2017, https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/rockefeller-brothers-fund-gets-behind-bds; Algemeiner, “The Rockefeller Brothers Fund Is Bankrolling Israel’s Destruction,” March 28, 2016, https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/03/28/the-rockefeller-brothers-fund-is-bankrolling-israels-destruction/.
20. Steinberg, “How Jewish Quotas Began”; Inside Higher Ed, “How the Ivy League’s Jewish Quotas Shaped Higher Education.”
21. Edward C. Halperin, “Why Did the United States Medical School Admissions Quota for Jewish Applicants End?,” American Journal of the Medical Sciences 358, no. 1 (2019): 53-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2019.06.010.
22. Steinberg, “How Jewish Quotas Began”; Inside Higher Ed, “How the Ivy League’s Jewish Quotas Shaped Higher Education.”
23. NGO Monitor, “Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP),” 2025, https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/students-for-justice-in-palestine-sjp/.
24. Harvard Crimson, “Harvard President Testifies before Congress on Antisemitism,” December 5, 2023, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/5/gay-testimony-congress-live-updates/.
25. NGO Monitor, “Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).”
26. Anti-Defamation League, “American Muslims for Palestine (AMP),” November 26, 2024, https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/american-muslims-palestine-amp.
27. U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Letter to National Students for Justice in Palestine, May 29, 2024, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Letter-to-National-SJP-5.29.24.pdf.
28. Harvard Crimson, “Harvard President Testifies before Congress on Antisemitism.”
29. JNS, “How Jews Became the Democrats’ Dependable Base and Disposable Scapegoat,” 2025, https://www.jns.org/how-jews-became-the-democrats-dependable-base-and-disposable-scapegoat/; American Enterprise Institute, “The Divided Jewish Political Community in America,” December 2021, https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-divided-jewish-political-community-in-america/.
Bibliography
Algemeiner. “The Rockefeller Brothers Fund Is Bankrolling Israel’s Destruction.” March 28, 2016. https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/03/28/the-rockefeller-brothers-fund-is-bankrolling-israels-destruction/.
American Enterprise Institute. “The Divided Jewish Political Community in America.” December 2021. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-divided-jewish-political-community-in-america/.
American Jewish Archives. “Henry Ford and Antisemitism: The Notorious Dearborn Independent.” April 28, 2021. https://www.americanjewisharchives.org/snapshots/henry-ford-and-antisemitism-the-notorious-dearborn-independent/.
American Jewish Historical Society. “Henry Ford: Inadvertent Nazi Collaborator.” 2025. https://ajhs.org/exhibit/henry-ford-inadvertent-nazi-collaborator.
Anti-Defamation League. “American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).” November 26, 2024. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/american-muslims-palestine-amp.
Baldwin, Neil. Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate. New York: PublicAffairs, 2001.
Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003.
Forward. “The Head of the Ford Foundation Condemned Antisemitism. Here’s Why That’s a Huge Deal.” September 26, 2023. https://forward.com/culture/562006/ford-foundation-darren-walker-antisemitism-statement-henry-ford/.
Future of Jewish. “It’s Time to Remove Tikkun Olam from Our Vocabulary.” December 13, 2025. https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/its-time-to-remove-tikkun-olam-from.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Goren, Arthur. New York Jews and the Quest for Community. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.
Halperin, Edward C. “Why Did the United States Medical School Admissions Quota for Jewish Applicants End?” American Journal of the Medical Sciences 358, no. 1 (2019): 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2019.06.010.
Harvard Crimson. “Harvard President Testifies before Congress on Antisemitism.” December 5, 2023. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/5/gay-testimony-congress-live-updates/.
Herf, Jeffrey. The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.
Inside Higher Ed. “How the Ivy League’s Jewish Quotas Shaped Higher Education.” 2022. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/22/how-ivy-leagues-jewish-quotas-shaped-higher-education.
JNS. “How Jews Became the Democrats’ Dependable Base and Disposable Scapegoat.” 2025. https://www.jns.org/how-jews-became-the-democrats-dependable-base-and-disposable-scapegoat/.
Kevles, Daniel J. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf, 1985.
Mendelsohn, Ezra. Class Struggle in the Pale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
NGO Monitor. “Ford Foundation.” 2003. https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/ford_foundation/.
NGO Monitor. “Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP): Available Funding and Other Information.” 2023. https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/funding-for-students-for-justice-in-palestine-sjp/.
NGO Monitor. “Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).” 2025. https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/students-for-justice-in-palestine-sjp/.
PBS. “Ford’s Anti-Semitism.” American Experience, 2017. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/henryford-antisemitism/.
Pew Research Center. “Jewish Americans in 2020.” May 11, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/.
Sacks, Rabbi Lord Jonathan. Speech in House of Lords debate on antisemitism. September 13, 2018. https://rabbisacks.org/videos/antisemitism-becomes-dangerous/.
SAPIR Journal. “Judaism and the Politics of Tikkun Olam.” Spring 2021. https://sapirjournal.org/social-justice/2021/judaism-and-the-politics-of-tikkun-olam/.
Steinberg, Stephen. “How Jewish Quotas Began.” Commentary Magazine, September 1971. https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/.
Tablet Magazine. “How Rockefeller Brothers Fund Came to Lend Its Legitimacy and Money to Groups That Push Boycotting Israel.” 2017. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/rockefeller-brothers-fund-gets-behind-bds.
U.S. Congress. Hearings on Ford Foundation Grant Practices: Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. 108th Congress, 2003.
U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Letter to National Students for Justice in Palestine. May 29, 2024. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Letter-to-National-SJP-5.29.24.pdf.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Antisemitism and Henry Ford’s ‘The International Jew.’” Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2025. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-and-henry-fords-international-jew.
Weindling, Paul. Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
