Author: Manuel

  • Peter Beinart: What does it mean to be Jewish after the destruction of Gaza?

    A Jewish-American liberal columnist, journalist, Peter Beinart attends and speaks at the rally as pro-Palestinian Jewish Americans gather outside the ICE headquarters at the emergency rally to release Palestinian Green Card holder and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil and reject mass deportations of Trump Administration on Thursday evening, March 20, 2025, at Foley Square, New York City, United States. Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Amid Israel’s ongoing destruction of Gaza, its illegal annexation of land in the Occupied West Bank, and belligerent warmaking in Iran and Lebanon, antisemitism around the globe is rising—but so is an international chorus of anti-Zionist Jews speaking out against Israel’s crimes. In this episode of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc speaks with renowned author and commentator Peter Beinart about his new book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, and about the “civil war” within the Jewish world over Israel.

    Guests:

    • Peter Beinart is a renowned author, professor, and analyst whose commentary regularly appears in The New York Times and MSNBC. Beinart is a professor of journalism and political science at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, and he is the editor at large of Jewish Currents. Beinart is the author of numerous books, including his most recent work, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. He lives with his family in New York City and writes regularly for his Substack, The Beinart Notebook.

    Credits:

    • Producer: Rosette Sewali
    • Studio Production: David Hebden
    • Audio Post-Production: Stephen Frank
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Marc Steiner:

    Welcome to the Marc Steiner Show here on The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. It’s great to have you all with us. And once again, we’re joined by Peter Beinart. He’s jumped with an incredible writing recently. He’s the 2026 Pan America Literary Award for nonfiction, his atest book being Jewish after the discussion of Gaza, a reckoning, which I encourage everyone to read and wrestle with. He’s a professor of journalism, political science at the New Mark School of Journalism at University of New York, contributing opinion writer at New York Times, editor at large of the Jewish currents, MSMDC, political commentator and non-resident fellow of the Foundation of the Middle East. And you can see his work at Beinart Notebook on Substack. So without further ado, welcome, Peter. Good to have you with us.

    Peter Beinart:

    Nice to be here.

    Marc Steiner:

    I was thinking many ways how to start this, but this is a very difficult time for Palestinians to survive. It’s also a very difficult time for Jews to stand up saying, “Not in our name.” And you are one of the most prominent people out there saying that and not being anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish about it. So talk a bit about that for a minute, just your whole way of approaching what we face.

    Peter Beinart:

    Well, Judaism is an ancient tradition, which speaks in many, many voices. But for me, when I think about what it means to be a Jew, and I start with the belief that Torah begins with the creation of human beings who are not of any religion or race or ethnicity. The first human beings that we encounter in Torah are not Jews or proto-Jews or Israelites or proto-Israelites. Adam and Eve and Noah, generation of the Tower of Babel, Cain and Abel, they’re universal human beings. And I think the lesson to that for me is that all human beings have incalculable value and that we must never lose sight of the value of all human life. And so what we see in the discourse in Israel and in many Jewish communities around the world is a support for the state of Israel that essentially trumps the value of the lives of all the people who live within that state.

    And that seems to me actually something akin to idolatry. It’s essentially the worship of something human made, the creation of a state, and the elevation of it over the lives of the human beings, human beings created in the image of God who live within that state, 50% of whom are Palestinian. And so to me, I think what’s incumbent upon us as Jews is to recenter the value of all human life, including Palestinian life at the center of how we think about what it means to be Jewish.

    Marc Steiner:

    So one of the things in what you’ve just said and what you’ve been writing, let me just throw this one thing out and maybe you’ll disagree or maybe you’ll agree, we’ll see. Antisemitism in this world runs very deep and it has for millennia. But what I’ve been talking and writing about recently is that for the first time in the history of the Jewish people, we’re unleashing it. We’re unleashing what’s dormant. We’re unleashing what’s active because of what’s happening in Israel, because of what Israelis are doing in our name to the Palestinians. And it doesn’t take much for hatred of Jews to explode. And I think it’s exploding because of ourprisian and Palestinians. Does that fit at all with you?

    Peter Beinart:

    I would put it somewhat differently. I mean, I agree with you that antisemitism is rising. I think it’s rising for two different reasons. Okay. The first is it’s rising in the same way that Islamophobia and anti-black racism and anti- LGBT and anti-immigrant. All of these things I think are rising because liberal democracy is faltering because we have these forces in America and you see them also in other parts of the world that basically are ethnonationalists. They basically want their country to be the province, to be dominated by one tribe, and everybody else is subordinate. I mean, what does Trump mean by make America great again? He means that there was a time in America where everybody knew their place, white Christian, straight men were on top and everybody else was below them. And these people want to reassert that America. And that process means devaluing the lives and the rights of everyone who doesn’t fit within that identity.

    And Jews are part of that, but we’re only one part of that. And so the people who have white Christian supremacists are going to be likely to be antisemitic and they’re also likely to be anti-black and anti-Muslim, et cetera. The second kind of reason antisemitism is rising, I think, is the one that you’re getting at, which is to say there are a lot of people who are very angry at Israel, often for very, very good reason. The problem is that Israel speaks in the name of the Jewish people and American Jewish and other diaspora Jewish organizations essentially say that to be Jewish means you support Israel, that Judaism and Zionism are essentially inseparable. And I think that is very dangerous because it basically says to people, “If you’re angry at Israel, you should also be angry at Jews.” And we have to fight against that conflation.

    But in fact, the Israeli government and establishment American Jewish organizations, they make exactly that conflation, which is the one that we should oppose. What we should say to people is, “You can think whatever you want about Israel, but it should not influence the way you think about American Jews.” Just like you can think however you want about the people’s Republic of China, you can hate the people’s Republic of China and you shouldn’t take out your hostility on Chinese Americans. We should make exactly that same argument vis-a-vis Jews in Israel. But unfortunately, groups like the Anti-Defamation League say essentially the opposite.

    Marc Steiner:

    I was thinking about what you just said and the piece around what Tucker Carlson talks about when he talks about Israel and how that criticism from often the right and the religious right is a condemnation of Jews as almost satanic. I’ve been to a couple of churches where I actually have heard something like that from the pulpit when people told me about these ministers. So I went in to see and listen. I mean, it seems to me that we’re on a precipice in terms of our survival as a people and how we define ourselves, who we are as a people.

    Peter Beinart:

    I think the problem with someone like Tarfor Carlson is not that all of his criticisms of Israel are wrong. Some of his criticisms are very valid and his criticisms of this war are very valid. And I will even give him credit. He’s interviewed a lot of Palestinians. He’s given Palestinians more of a platform than they get in a lot of the media. The problem is that Tucker Carlson is still at his core an ethnonationalist, kind of an American Christian ethno nationalist. And so instead of saying, Israel is committing crimes of the same kind that countries of any racial or religious or ethnic group, including Americas, have committed settler colonialism. What is Israel doing to the Palestinians? In a lot of ways, it’s very similar to what America did to Native Americans, pushing people off of their land into smaller and smaller enclaves. Because Carlson wants to maintain the idea of American Christian moral superiority, he tends to often suggest that there’s something peculiarly Jewish about what Israel is doing.

    And that’s where I think the conversation becomes dangerous.

    Marc Steiner:

    So where do you think this reality goes in terms of the Jewish people in our country? I mean, when you see the debates inside of the Jewish world, the growing movement of not in our name.

    Peter Beinart:

    And so

    Marc Steiner:

    You’ve been covering this, watching it, writing about it. I really want to hear what your thoughts are about where you think this takes us.

    Peter Beinart:

    Well, I think there’s a struggle in the United States, which has to do with the idea that we should be a country that treats everybody equally under the law, irrespective of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and groups of people who want America to be a white Christian supremacist country, kind of ethnonationalist vision. And oftentimes those people who want America to be a white Christian supremacist nation also are comfortable with Israel’s version of ethnonationalism, with Israel being a Jewish supremacist nation as well. And so what you find among the most powerful Jewish organizations, let’s say APAC or the anti-defamation league, their number one concern is making sure that America supports Israel unconditionally, and they don’t mind if America becomes a white Christian supremacist nation as long as it supports Israel. And then you have another group of Jews who are fighting against this white Christian authoritarianism that we’re seeing in the Republican Party, and many of them are also fighting against ethnonationalism in Israel.

    They’re fighting for the principle of equality under the law, both here in America and in Israel-Palestine. And this is a kind of civil war within the Jewish community. As you know, it runs through many synagogues and many families where there’s a deep divide about this question. I fundamentally believe that American Jews and Jews in general are safer in countries where everybody is treated equally under the law and that the principle of Jewish supremacy and Christian supremacy and Hindu supremacy and Islamic supremacy, all of those things are wrong and that we should oppose the idea of any states giving legal preference to people based on their religion or their ethnicity or their race. It

    Marc Steiner:

    Has raised a lot of contradictions. I mean, one of the things I raise often with this is that in the 1960s, doing the civil rights movement that I was a part of, 60% of all the white civil rights workers were Jews.

    Peter Beinart:

    Right.

    Marc Steiner:

    And that’s not a mistake when you come from Holocaust surviving family,

    Peter Beinart:

    Surviving

    Marc Steiner:

    The pogroms that my family did both. So I mean, but I think that something has turned, and I wonder if through organizing, through argument, if that can be turned around.

    Peter Beinart:

    I hope it can. I think you’re entirely right that something turned. If you look at organized American Jewish life in the middle of the 20th century, in the 50s and the 60s, civil rights was a major focus. The Jewish organizations believed that if American Jews supported Black Americans in getting the right to vote and getting equal treatment, then that would also secure the place of Jews as being treated equally in America. It’s not a coincidence that the last quotas at Ivy League universities ended in the 60s as the civil rights movement was beginning to triumph because American Jews, I think, understood that if Black Americans failed in their effort towards move towards equality, then Jews would probably also be victims of greater discrimination. But what happened after the civil rights movement is that a lot of the American Jewish organizations shifted their focus and became essentially Israel defense organizations.

    There are various reasons for this, but basically starting really after the 67 war, you see this turn towards these organizations becoming Israel defense organizations. And the problem with defending Israel is first of all, it turns these organizations away from focusing on questions of justice in the United States. I mean, the most powerful American Jewish organization is now APAC. APAC has no concern whatsoever for what happens in the United States. So when APAC sees a politician like Donald Trump and they think about who should they should give money to, they don’t ask the question, “Does this person believe in American democracy? Does this person oppose bigotry in our country?” No. The only question they ask is, “Does this person support Israel enough?” And so you essentially have a kind of an abandonment by America’s most powerful Jewish organizations of their moral responsibility for what happens in the United States.

    And oftentimes they’re willing to support people who tried to overthrow the 2020 election so long as those people are supporters of Israel. And I think this really undermined the kind of commitment to democracy that we saw expressed during the civil rights movement by American Jews.

    Marc Steiner:

    And what you’re describing, I think also unleashes antisemitism. Questions who Jews are. Who are they loyal to? Who are you loyal to and why? Which is why you hear what Tucker Carlson and those guys are saying at this moment from the right. And I don’t think people actually in the Jewish world, the majority of people do not see what’s being unleashed and the dangers we face because of it.

    Peter Beinart:

    I certainly think the Jewish organization leaders are not willing to grapple and acknowledge with this problem. I mean, so for instance, we have these issues here where you have protests outside synagogues because the synagogues are say selling land in the West Bank. They’re selling land to settlers. This is land largely often stolen from Palestinians. And so you would think that the response for Jewish organization should be synagogues should not be doing this, right? Synagogues are placed to pray. They’re places to study Torah. They should not be involved in acts that are blatantly immoral, that are violations of international law. Instead of responding that way, the groups like the Anti-Defamation League basically say, “You see those protesters protesting outside of synagogues? They hate Jews that otherwise, why would they be protesting outside of synagogues?” What we should be saying is, of course we don’t want people protesting outside of synagogues, God forbid, but we need to make sure the synagogues don’t do things that are fundamentally immoral.

    And when they do those things, they conflate Jews and Israel’s immoral actions in ways that actually, I think really put Jews in danger and are also are just fundamentally wrong.

    Marc Steiner:

    I’m very curious where you think this, what we face now will take both Israelis and Balestinians and the United States. I have a poster on my wall that I got in Cuba in 1968 when I was a young radical and went down with the delegation to Cuba. And the poster I came back with was a map of all of the holy land, all of it with an Israeli flag on one side and a Palestinian flag on the other side and down the front of it over the map, the words were one state, two people, three faiths. And it’s kind of been my mantra for a long time.

    Peter Beinart:

    Yes.

    Marc Steiner:

    How realistic is that, do you think? Where the struggle goes today in terms of the growth in the Jewish population, young Jews saying, “No, not in our name.”

    Peter Beinart:

    It’s not realistic now, but the question is, can we make it realistic? I mean, there are lots of things. Civil rights was also not realistic in the United States in the 1920s or 30s or 40s. It was made realistic by a great movement that you were part of. Overturning apartheid was not realistic in the 1960s and 70s. In the 1980s and 90s, it became realistic because of the anti-apartheid movement. So I think we need a movement to change US policy. So the US is not complicit in Israel’s crimes. Europe needs to change its policy because Europe is very, very much connected in also its economic relationship and allowing what Israel is able to do to the Palestinians. And I think that could set in motion a different kind of political dynamic where perhaps we can move towards a just peace. Now, what exactly would it look like?

    I don’t know. But to me, and it’s not my decision, it’s the decision of the people who were there, but it seems to me the fundamental principle that I would argue for, which is I think similar to what was in that poster is wherever Jews and Palestinians live alongside each other, they should be treated equally under the law. We should not have Jews and Palestinians living alongside each other in which one group has superior legal rights to the other as exists today.

    Marc Steiner:

    I want to come back to the book, which I’ve been reading. I don’t have a hard copy, but I read it online, and I think that it’s a really important piece. And I just want to come back to that and talk a bit about people listening to us now about what that book is saying and how we get to this place in America with everything we face, with the right wing in power and growing in power, with the liberals and left in disarray, with Israel and being Jewish at the center of that struggle.

    Peter Beinart:

    What I argue in the book is that we Jews are fully human and being fully human means that we are capable of doing anything that any other group of humans are doing. We are not history’s permanent victims, that in every case, we are always the ones who are in the victim role, that we have been victimized terribly in moments in history. We could be again, but we are also capable of the same kind of terrible oppression, even genocide that other groups of people are. And recognizing that can allow us to see what’s happening in Israel-Palestine in a different way than many of us were raised to believe, which is basically that Palestinian opposition to Zionism and to Israel is just the same reincarnation of the antisemitism that threatened our parents or grandparents in Europe or wherever. That after if we look at the situation plainly, we can see that there is a system of very deep and profound oppression of Palestinians that exist.

    And that system, I believe, violates the core Jewish principle that all human beings are created equal in the image of God. And I also believe it puts Jews at risk. I think supremacist political systems make everybody less safe, and that the equation of Israel with Jews also makes Jews around the world less safe.

    Marc Steiner:

    We need to get Jew in your book to Baltimore.

    Peter Beinart:

    I would love to do it.

    Marc Steiner:

    So I’m going to write to you and I’m going to make that happen.

    Peter Beinart:

    Wonderful.

    Marc Steiner:

    Because I think people need to see this. The book, Being Jewish Yet for Destruction of Gaza, is I think a really profound book. And I didn’t know what to expect when I started, but you raise issues that need to be raised and the people need to wrestle with.

    Peter Beinart:

    Thank you. I really appreciate that.

    Marc Steiner:

    And I deeply appreciate you taking time with us today. My

    Peter Beinart:

    Pleasure.

    Marc Steiner:

    Peter Byner, always a pleasure to talk to you and we’ll get you here and we’ll talk some more.

    Peter Beinart:

    That’ll be great. Looking forward to it.

    Marc Steiner:

    All right. Take care, my friend.

    Peter Beinart:

    Take

    Marc Steiner:

    Care.

    Peter Beinart:

    All right. Be well.

    Marc Steiner:

    Once again, I want to thank Peter Beynard for joining us today. And you can see more of Peter Beynard’s work on his Substack. Peter Beinart, that’s P-E-T-E-R B-E-I-N-A-R-T at selfstack.com. And thanks to Cameron Brandino for running the program today, audio edit to Steven Frank for working his magic, Rosette Sowali for producing the Marc Steiner Show and the tireless Keller Rivera, making it all work behind the scenes, and everyone here at The Real News for making this show possible. So please let me know what you thought about what you heard today, what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com, and I’ll get right back to you. So once again, thank you to Peter Beinart for joining us today and for his tireless work. So for the crew here at the Real News, I’m Marc Steiner. Stay involved, keep listening, and take care.

  • This Congressional shortcut used to shower ICE with billions could create an authoritarian funding playbook

    Last week, Republicans in Congress passed a framework for a proposed round of funding for ICE and Border Patrol. The measure was intended to end an impasse over Department of Homeland Security funding, which lapsed over 10 weeks ago. 

    But the budgetary framework, which includes $70 billion for both agencies, came with a twist: No Democratic input needed.

    Republicans bypassed the normal budget process in a move The Hill said sets a “dangerous precedent” and could lead to one-sided steamrolling to secure unilateral funding for unpopular policies like continuing the US-Israeli War with Iran.

    To secure funding without a single vote from any Congressional Democrat, Republicans have invoked an arcane procedure known as “reconciliation,” a legislative maneuver that allows a bill to bypass the Senate filibuster, provided it meets certain criteria. Their reason for deploying it? To sidestep opposition from Democrats, who had declined to fund ICE or CBP without reforms, and the democratic process altogether.

    Democrats have been demanding ICE and CBP agents stop wearing masks, use body cameras, and discontinue raids on homes without warrants, among other stipulations, in exchange for funding the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans refused to concede on any of these issues, and a 76-day shutdown ensued.

    But this week, Republicans decided to go it alone, and their effort may be successful. As a result, the passage of the budget framework through the reconciliation process is an alarming move for a party that has already demonstrated a clear willingness to discard democratic norms, processes, and guardrails.

    The framework also left a lot of questions unanswered, including: Why the additional money for controversial agencies that already received nearly $140 billion from “The Big Beautiful Bill”?

    We posed that exact question to Republican Congressman Mike Lawler on the steps of Capitol Hill. He declined to provide specifics.

    ​“That’s the cost of funding the department. Are you for abolishing ICE?” he replied. “You understand that is the appropriate amount?”

    Since early last year, at the behest of President Trump, federal agents have flooded Democratically governed “blue cities” like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Chicago, deploying unconstitutional tactics, precipitating confrontations, and killing at least three American citizens.

    DHS now has a record 73,000 detainees jailed across the country, the result of the Trump administration’s brutal “mass deportation” campaign and policy changes that, among other acts, no longer allow recent immigrants to remain free in the US while awaiting their asylum hearings.

    Meanwhile, Lawler and his colleagues seem determined to use the reconciliation process to circumvent Democratic opponents and fund other MAGA priorities. Republican Congressman Mike Flood told us he anticipates another round of reconciliation to pay for the war with Iran.

    “This, for me, makes the case for reconciliation 3.0,” Flood said when asked to explain the need for additional ICE funding. “We have to pay for the effort in Iran.”

    Decades ago, Congress adhered to a budgeting method called “regular order.” It was a process established by a 1974 law called the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which required public hearings on appropriations for individual agencies, along with testimony and debate.

    But partisan politics, from Democrats and Republicans, forced that process into stopgap measures such as continuing resolutions and massive omnibus spending bills. The shift pushed negotiations over funding measures into the upper chambers of the House and Senate leadership, with public hearings and debate almost entirely abandoned.

    Still, reconciliation has not been used for routine agency budgeting—until now.

    Reconciliation requires the passage of a framework that instructs the appropriate committees to draft legislation to submit to the Senate parliamentarian. The parliamentarian then decides if the legislation qualifies for the exemption. A bill is considered eligible if it has a “non-incidental” fiscal impact and meets several other criteria.

    Democrats fear this unprecedented use of reconciliation will allow Republicans to throw even more money at agencies like ICE for dubious or openly nefarious reasons.

    “That’s why I go back to the lead-up to November,” Democrat congressman Rob Menendez said at a press conference last week. “I am worried they would use the $70 billion to have ICE and CBP in blue districts across the county to try to intimidate voters.”

    Menendez explained that one of the Democrats’ demands to fund DHS focused entirely on keeping ICE and CBP out of the electoral fray in the upcoming midterm elections. Another demand Republicans rejected.

    “One of the reforms we have asked for over and over again during the partial shutdown is to guarantee that they will not. And they have not agreed to those terms.”

    ​Still, if Congressional Republicans are able to shower more cash on ICE and CBP without majority consent from the voters or even participation from the other governing party, it would suggest we’re entering uncharted terrain and a new phase in MAGA’s monopoly on fiscal and political power. 

    ​The question is: Can anything, or will anyone, stop them?

    (more…)

  • Top Jordan Sneaker Releases in May 2026

    May 2026 is loaded with strong Jordan drops, from retro heat to highly anticipated collaborations. Whether you are after a bold classic, a clean seasonal pair, or one of the month’s biggest hype releases, there is plenty to circle on the calendar.

    Note: Release dates and pricing are always subject to change.

    1. Air Jordan 4 GS “Infrared 23”

    Release Date: May 1, 2026
    Price: $165

    The month starts off with the Air Jordan 4 GS “Infrared 23,” a grade-school exclusive that mixes a black upper with bright mango, barely volt, and infrared accents. It is one of the louder Jordan drops on the May calendar and should stand out immediately on foot.

    2. Air Jordan 4 “Toro Bravo”

    Release Date: May 2, 2026
    Price: $220

    One of the biggest retro returns of the month, the Air Jordan 4 “Toro Bravo” brings back its signature fire red suede upper with black, white, and cement grey detailing. This is the kind of release that longtime Jordan fans have been waiting to see return.

    3. Air Jordan 11 Low WMNS “Mother’s Day”

    Release Date: May 2, 2026
    Price: $195

    The Air Jordan 11 Low WMNS “Mother’s Day” gives the classic low-top silhouette a softer seasonal feel with a white upper and metallic gold finish. It is one of the cleaner lifestyle-focused Jordan releases scheduled for May.

    4. Air Jordan 1 Low OG “Banned”

    Release Date: May 16, 2026
    Price: $145

    The iconic black and varsity red look lands on the Air Jordan 1 Low OG “Banned,” giving one of Jordan Brand’s most famous color stories a low-top summer-ready format. For many sneaker fans, this is easily one of the best value pickups of the month.

    5. Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP “Muslin/Shy Pink”

    Release Date: May 22, 2026
    Price: $155

    The Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP “Muslin/Shy Pink” is one of the most anticipated May 2026 drops. The pair combines muslin, shy pink, sail, and university red while continuing the run of Travis Scott Jordan 1 Low releases that always draw major attention.

    6. Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP “Sail/Tropical Pink”

    Release Date: May 22, 2026
    Price: $155

    Jordan Brand is also expected to drop a second Travis Scott Air Jordan 1 Low on the same day in a “Sail/Tropical Pink” makeup. With both pairs landing on May 22, that release date could become the biggest Jordan launch day of the month.

    7. Air Jordan 3 “World’s Best Dad”

    Release Date: May 30, 2026
    Price: $215

    Closing out the month is the Air Jordan 3 “World’s Best Dad,” a themed release dressed in Sail, Black, University Red, Pale Ivory, and Palomino. It brings a more story-driven feel to the end of May and offers a different lane from the louder retro and collaboration drops earlier in the month.

    Final Thoughts

    May 2026 has a little bit of everything: a bold retro in the “Toro Bravo” 4, a seasonal Air Jordan 11 Low, a classic-inspired “Banned” low, and two Travis Scott collaborations that will likely dominate the conversation. Add in the “World’s Best Dad” Air Jordan 3 and it is easy to see why May is shaping up to be one of the strongest Jordan release months of 2026.

    The post Top Jordan Sneaker Releases in May 2026 appeared first on The Hoop Doctors.

    (more…)

  • 2025-26 NBA MVP Prediction: Why Victor Wembanyama Has the Strongest Case

    With the 2025-26 NBA regular season entering its final stretch, the MVP race has come down to three truly elite candidates: Victor Wembanyama, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and Nikola Jokic. All three have delivered seasons worthy of serious consideration, and in many years, each one would have a legitimate argument to win the award.

    But if I had to predict the winner today, I would pick Victor Wembanyama.

    That is not a slight to Gilgeous-Alexander, who has been the best scoring guard in basketball on a dominant Oklahoma City team, or to Jokic, who has once again produced one of the most extraordinary all-around offensive seasons the league has ever seen. It is simply a recognition that Wembanyama’s combination of elite production, team success, defensive dominance, and late-season momentum gives him the strongest overall MVP case right now.

    The Top Three MVP Candidates

    1. Victor Wembanyama, San Antonio Spurs

    Wembanyama has turned the MVP conversation into a true debate because his impact goes far beyond traditional box-score volume. He is averaging 24.7 points, 11.5 rebounds, and 3.1 blocks per game, while leading a Spurs team that has surged to 59-18 and the No. 2 spot in the Western Conference.

    Those numbers are impressive on their own, but the context makes them even stronger. Wembanyama is anchoring one of the league’s best teams while providing game-changing value on both ends of the floor. Offensively, he creates matchup problems no defense can comfortably solve. Defensively, he alters entire game plans. That matters in an MVP race where the margins are this small.

    2. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Oklahoma City Thunder

    Gilgeous-Alexander has been brilliant all season and remains a completely credible MVP pick. He is averaging 31.6 points, 4.4 rebounds, and 6.5 assists per game for an Oklahoma City team that owns the league’s best record at 61-16.

    His case begins with consistency. Night after night, Gilgeous-Alexander delivers efficient, controlled offense and has been the engine of the NBA’s most successful regular-season team. There is tremendous value in being the best player on the best team, and that reality is why he remains so close to the top of this race.

    3. Nikola Jokic, Denver Nuggets

    Jokic is having another historic season, averaging 27.7 points, 13.0 rebounds, and 10.8 assists per game for Denver. A center averaging a triple-double is remarkable enough. Doing it for a second straight season places him in rare territory even by his own standards.

    From a purely offensive standpoint, Jokic may still be the most impactful player in basketball. He controls pace, creates efficient shots for everyone on the floor, and remains the most versatile offensive hub in the league. The issue for his MVP case is not production. It is team standing. Denver, at 49-28, simply has not matched the regular-season dominance of Oklahoma City or San Antonio.

    Why I Think Wembanyama Will Win

    The strongest MVP argument this year comes down to total impact, not just offensive excellence or scoring volume. That is where Wembanyama separates himself.

    Gilgeous-Alexander has the edge in scoring and has led the team with the best record. Jokic has the most historic all-around offensive stat line. But Wembanyama offers something neither of them quite matches: elite value on both ends of the floor at the same time, on a team that has won at an MVP-worthy level.

    His 24.7 points and 11.5 rebounds already put him in superstar territory. Add 3.1 blocks per game, and the picture changes from “great season” to “franchise-defining dominance.” He is not just a productive defender. He is a defense by himself. That kind of impact is difficult to overstate. When voters are comparing players this close, defense becomes a major separator.

    That is the key point in Wembanyama’s favor. Gilgeous-Alexander has been phenomenal, but his MVP case is built mostly on elite offense, efficiency, and team success. Jokic’s case is built mostly on historic offensive control and statistical brilliance. Wembanyama combines high-end offensive production with defensive influence that can completely reshape a game.

    And unlike many past candidates whose defensive value came with lower team results, Wembanyama’s team success is fully in the MVP range. The Spurs are not a feel-good surprise story anymore. They are one of the league’s top teams. That matters.

    Why Wembanyama Deserves It More Than Gilgeous-Alexander

    Gilgeous-Alexander’s argument is straightforward and powerful: he scores more, he creates efficiently, and he has led the NBA’s best team. In many seasons, that would be enough to make him the clear favorite.

    But this season, Wembanyama closes the gap in team success while providing a much larger defensive edge. Oklahoma City’s record is better, but San Antonio’s record is also elite. The difference between first and second in the West is meaningful, yet it is not so overwhelming that it should erase Wembanyama’s advantage as a rim protector, rebounder, and overall defensive force.

    If the question is which player does more to affect every possession on both sides of the ball, Wembanyama has the stronger answer. Gilgeous-Alexander may be the more polished offensive closer right now, but Wembanyama influences the game in more dimensions.

    Why Wembanyama Deserves It More Than Joki?

    Jokic has the most historically unusual stat line of the three candidates, and no serious MVP discussion can dismiss a center averaging a triple-double. He remains one of the most unique players the league has ever seen.

    However, MVP is rarely awarded in a vacuum. Team performance matters, and Denver’s record lags behind both Oklahoma City and San Antonio. When one candidate is producing at a superstar level on a 59-win team and another is doing the same on a team outside the top two in its conference, that difference becomes difficult to ignore.

    Wembanyama also has the far stronger defensive case. Jokic orchestrates offense at a historically high level, but Wembanyama can control an entire game defensively in a way almost no player in the league can. That two-way edge gives Wembanyama the cleaner overall MVP profile.

    Final Prediction

    This has been one of the deepest MVP races in recent memory. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has the best player-on-the-best-team argument. Nikola Joki? has the most statistically historic offensive season. But Victor Wembanyama has the most complete case.

    He has produced star-level offense, elite rebounding, dominant rim protection, and top-tier team success. He has not just been spectacular. He has been the kind of player who changes both ends of the floor every single night.

    My prediction: Victor Wembanyama wins the 2025-26 NBA MVP.

    In a race this close, the deciding factor should be total value. And no candidate has provided more complete value this season than Wembanyama.

    The post 2025-26 NBA MVP Prediction: Why Victor Wembanyama Has the Strongest Case appeared first on The Hoop Doctors.

    (more…)

  • Final Four Predictions: Who Wins Saturday and Who Reaches the National Championship Game?

    The Final Four is finally here, and this year’s field feels less like a bracket surprise and more like a collision of heavyweights. UConn vs. Illinois. Michigan vs. Arizona. Four teams, four different paths, and two tickets to Monday night.

    There is no Cinderella left standing. What remains is size, shot-making, coaching pedigree, and a whole lot of pressure.

    So who gets through?

    Here is our prediction for both national semifinals, along with the two teams we believe will be playing for the title.

    Game 1 Prediction: Illinois over UConn

    This feels like the hardest game on the board to call, which is exactly what makes it such a great Final Four matchup.

    UConn arrives with championship DNA and the confidence that comes from surviving big moments. Dan Hurley’s program has now reached the Final Four for the third time in four years, and the Huskies got here by pulling off one of the most dramatic wins of the tournament when Braylon Mullins buried a last-second shot to stun Duke in the Elite Eight. Tarris Reed Jr. has been a monster throughout March, giving UConn a bruising interior presence and the kind of toughness that tends to travel well this time of year.

    But Illinois may have the exact profile needed to knock them out.

    The Illini have been the best defensive team of the four remaining teams during this NCAA Tournament, and they have paired that defense with overwhelming size and elite rebounding. Illinois is not just tall. It is disruptive. The Illini can crowd the paint, challenge shots at the rim, and still have enough length on the perimeter to make passing angles uncomfortable. That matters against a UConn team that thrives when it can establish rhythm and physical control.

    Illinois also has not looked fluky getting here. This team has defended, rebounded, and played with the kind of poise that usually shows up in teams built for one more weekend. In a game that is likely to turn ugly for stretches, that extra defensive reliability feels like the difference.

    Prediction: Illinois 74, UConn 70

    Expect a physical, tense game with long possessions and huge swings in momentum. UConn will absolutely have chances to win it, but Illinois looks slightly better built for this specific matchup.

    Game 2 Prediction: Michigan over Arizona

    If the first semifinal looks like a grinder, the second has the feel of a prizefight.

    Michigan has stormed into Indianapolis looking like the most explosive team left in the field. The Wolverines have won all four of their tournament games by double digits, and they scored at least 90 points in each of those wins. That is not a hot streak anymore. That is an identity.

    Dusty May’s team has played with pace, balance, and confidence, and it has done it without feeling dependent on one single player to rescue every possession. Yaxel Lendeborg has been terrific, Elliot Cadeau has kept the offense humming, and Michigan’s combination of size and scoring punch has overwhelmed opponents so far.

    Arizona is good enough to win the whole thing. The Wildcats own a 36-2 record, they won both the Big 12 regular-season and tournament titles, and they just reached their first Final Four since 2001. Koa Peat gives them a real star, and Tommy Lloyd has built a team that can punish opponents without needing to live from three-point range.

    Still, Michigan has looked like the sharper attacking team throughout this tournament.

    That matters in a one-game setting. Arizona is absolutely capable of dictating terms with its physicality and half-court execution, but Michigan has been the most consistently overwhelming offense in the bracket. At some point, that kind of pressure forces even elite teams into mistakes they do not usually make.

    Prediction: Michigan 82, Arizona 77

    This one should feel like a championship game before the championship game. In the end, Michigan’s current form is just too hard to ignore.

    Our Predicted National Championship Matchup: Illinois vs. Michigan

    That gives us an all-Big Ten title game, which would be a fitting ending to a tournament dominated by power programs and mature, physically imposing rosters.

    Illinois would get there with defense, rebounding, and size that can wear down almost anybody. Michigan would arrive with the hottest offense left in the tournament and the confidence of a team that has bulldozed every March opponent in front of it.

    It would also be a fascinating stylistic contrast. Illinois wants to make you uncomfortable for 40 minutes. Michigan wants to make you feel like you are losing the game in waves.

    That is exactly the kind of title-game tension college basketball needs.

    Why Illinois and Michigan Make the Most Sense

    Prediction pieces are always part analysis and part nerve, but the factual case for these two teams is strong.

    Illinois has the tournament’s best defensive efficiency among the four remaining teams and has dominated the glass during this run. That is not just useful in April. It is often decisive. When possessions get tighter and nerves get heavier, rebounding and rim protection usually age better than pure shot-making.

    Michigan, meanwhile, has not merely survived its path. It has crushed it. Four straight double-digit wins. Four straight 90-point performances. That kind of offensive rhythm is rare this deep into the tournament, especially against quality competition.

    None of that guarantees a result, of course. UConn has the championship scars and shot-making to win another tight semifinal. Arizona has the pedigree, size, and talent to beat anyone in the country. But if you are making the call based on what these teams have been in this tournament, Illinois and Michigan are the picks that line up best with the evidence.

    Final Thoughts

    The beauty of this Final Four is that none of these picks feel safe.

    UConn knows how to live in the biggest moments. Illinois looks built to turn those moments into wrestling matches. Arizona has spent all year proving it belongs back on this stage. Michigan has looked like a freight train.

    That is what makes Saturday so compelling. There are no passengers left. Only contenders.

    Our call: Illinois gets past UConn, Michigan gets past Arizona, and Monday night belongs to a championship game between two Big Ten powers with completely different ways of breaking opponents down.

    And if that is how it plays out, the title game should be an absolute monster.

    The post Final Four Predictions: Who Wins Saturday and Who Reaches the National Championship Game? appeared first on The Hoop Doctors.

    (more…)

  • Justice Jackson condemns Supreme Court’s decision to fast-track Louisiana electoral map ruling

    US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gives a joint lecture at the Ceremonial Courtroom at the US Courthouse on March 9, 2026 in Washington, DC. Photo by Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post via Getty Images
    ” data-large-file=”https://i0.wp.com/therealnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GettyImages-2265246750.jpg?fit=780%2C520&ssl=1″>

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on May 05, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    Warning that the US Supreme Court’s right-wing majority was appearing to give its approval of Louisiana’s decision to suspend federal primary elections in the state following the court’s ruling on the state’s congressional map last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday evening was the lone dissenter as the court agreed to immediately finalize the ruling instead of waiting the customary 32 days.

    By expediting the ruling, suggested Jackson, the court was taking an obviously political stance in support of efforts to ensure Louisiana Republicans can quickly redraw the state’s congressional map to yield more electoral wins for the GOP.

    “The court’s decision to buck our usual practice,” wrote Jackson, “is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”

    Ordinarily, the court would wait 32 days to transmit an opinion to the lower courts, giving the losing party time to request that the justices reconsider the case.

    In a brief, unsigned opinion Monday evening, the court said that the Black voters who had defended the state’s 2024 congressional map at the center of Louisiana v. Callais had “not expressed any intent to ask this court to reconsider its judgment.”

    In Louisiana v. Callais last week, the court ruled along ideological lines that the 2024 map—which was drawn to better represent the population of Louisiana, where one-third of residents are Black—was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling effectively struck down the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which held that voters of color can challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps.

    The map that was struck down ensured there were two majority-minority districts in the state. Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature is expected to try to eliminate at least one of those districts, with a new map yielding five Republicans and one Democrat in the US House.

    In transmitting last week’s ruling to the lower courts without delay, the court granted a request from the group of white voters who had challenged the state’s map.

    “Because it is for the District Court to either draw an interim remedial map or approve a legislative remedy, jurisdiction should be returned to the District Court as soon as possible so that it can oversee an orderly process,” wrote the plaintiffs.

    The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ request days after Republican Gov. Jeff Landry took executive action to suspend the state’s US House primaries in an effort to ensure they take place after the new map is drawn.

    That action, wrote Jackson on Monday, had “a strong political undercurrent” that the court’s latest move appeared to openly endorse.

    “Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties,” wrote Jackson, noting that the court has only expedited a decision twice in the last 25 years. “As always, the court has a choice… To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures.”

    “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” she wrote.

    John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said that the court was going against its practice of following the “Purcell doctrine,” which came out of a 2006 Supreme Court order and holds that “courts should not change voting or election rules too close to an election in order to avoid confusion for voters and election officials alike.”

    The Supreme Court, said Bisognano, “decided to inject itself into an ongoing election and at this point no one can say otherwise.”

    (more…)

  • Peter Beinart: What does it mean to be Jewish after the destruction of Gaza?

    A Jewish-American liberal columnist, journalist, Peter Beinart attends and speaks at the rally as pro-Palestinian Jewish Americans gather outside the ICE headquarters at the emergency rally to release Palestinian Green Card holder and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil and reject mass deportations of Trump Administration on Thursday evening, March 20, 2025, at Foley Square, New York City, United States. Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images
    ” data-large-file=”https://i0.wp.com/therealnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GettyImages-2205473647-scaled.jpg?fit=780%2C526&ssl=1″>

    Amid Israel’s ongoing destruction of Gaza, its illegal annexation of land in the Occupied West Bank, and belligerent warmaking in Iran and Lebanon, antisemitism around the globe is rising—but so is an international chorus of anti-Zionist Jews speaking out against Israel’s crimes. In this episode of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc speaks with renowned author and commentator Peter Beinart about his new book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, and about the “civil war” within the Jewish world over Israel.

    Guests:

    • Peter Beinart is a renowned author, professor, and analyst whose commentary regularly appears in The New York Times and MSNBC. Beinart is a professor of journalism and political science at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, and he is the editor at large of Jewish Currents. Beinart is the author of numerous books, including his most recent work, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. He lives with his family in New York City and writes regularly for his Substack, The Beinart Notebook.

    Credits:

    • Producer: Rosette Sewali
    • Studio Production: David Hebden
    • Audio Post-Production: Stephen Frank
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Marc Steiner:

    Welcome to the Marc Steiner Show here on The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. It’s great to have you all with us. And once again, we’re joined by Peter Beinart. He’s jumped with an incredible writing recently. He’s the 2026 Pan America Literary Award for nonfiction, his atest book being Jewish after the discussion of Gaza, a reckoning, which I encourage everyone to read and wrestle with. He’s a professor of journalism, political science at the New Mark School of Journalism at University of New York, contributing opinion writer at New York Times, editor at large of the Jewish currents, MSMDC, political commentator and non-resident fellow of the Foundation of the Middle East. And you can see his work at Beinart Notebook on Substack. So without further ado, welcome, Peter. Good to have you with us.

    Peter Beinart:

    Nice to be here.

    Marc Steiner:

    I was thinking many ways how to start this, but this is a very difficult time for Palestinians to survive. It’s also a very difficult time for Jews to stand up saying, “Not in our name.” And you are one of the most prominent people out there saying that and not being anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish about it. So talk a bit about that for a minute, just your whole way of approaching what we face.

    Peter Beinart:

    Well, Judaism is an ancient tradition, which speaks in many, many voices. But for me, when I think about what it means to be a Jew, and I start with the belief that Torah begins with the creation of human beings who are not of any religion or race or ethnicity. The first human beings that we encounter in Torah are not Jews or proto-Jews or Israelites or proto-Israelites. Adam and Eve and Noah, generation of the Tower of Babel, Cain and Abel, they’re universal human beings. And I think the lesson to that for me is that all human beings have incalculable value and that we must never lose sight of the value of all human life. And so what we see in the discourse in Israel and in many Jewish communities around the world is a support for the state of Israel that essentially trumps the value of the lives of all the people who live within that state.

    And that seems to me actually something akin to idolatry. It’s essentially the worship of something human made, the creation of a state, and the elevation of it over the lives of the human beings, human beings created in the image of God who live within that state, 50% of whom are Palestinian. And so to me, I think what’s incumbent upon us as Jews is to recenter the value of all human life, including Palestinian life at the center of how we think about what it means to be Jewish.

    Marc Steiner:

    So one of the things in what you’ve just said and what you’ve been writing, let me just throw this one thing out and maybe you’ll disagree or maybe you’ll agree, we’ll see. Antisemitism in this world runs very deep and it has for millennia. But what I’ve been talking and writing about recently is that for the first time in the history of the Jewish people, we’re unleashing it. We’re unleashing what’s dormant. We’re unleashing what’s active because of what’s happening in Israel, because of what Israelis are doing in our name to the Palestinians. And it doesn’t take much for hatred of Jews to explode. And I think it’s exploding because of ourprisian and Palestinians. Does that fit at all with you?

    Peter Beinart:

    I would put it somewhat differently. I mean, I agree with you that antisemitism is rising. I think it’s rising for two different reasons. Okay. The first is it’s rising in the same way that Islamophobia and anti-black racism and anti- LGBT and anti-immigrant. All of these things I think are rising because liberal democracy is faltering because we have these forces in America and you see them also in other parts of the world that basically are ethnonationalists. They basically want their country to be the province, to be dominated by one tribe, and everybody else is subordinate. I mean, what does Trump mean by make America great again? He means that there was a time in America where everybody knew their place, white Christian, straight men were on top and everybody else was below them. And these people want to reassert that America. And that process means devaluing the lives and the rights of everyone who doesn’t fit within that identity.

    And Jews are part of that, but we’re only one part of that. And so the people who have white Christian supremacists are going to be likely to be antisemitic and they’re also likely to be anti-black and anti-Muslim, et cetera. The second kind of reason antisemitism is rising, I think, is the one that you’re getting at, which is to say there are a lot of people who are very angry at Israel, often for very, very good reason. The problem is that Israel speaks in the name of the Jewish people and American Jewish and other diaspora Jewish organizations essentially say that to be Jewish means you support Israel, that Judaism and Zionism are essentially inseparable. And I think that is very dangerous because it basically says to people, “If you’re angry at Israel, you should also be angry at Jews.” And we have to fight against that conflation.

    But in fact, the Israeli government and establishment American Jewish organizations, they make exactly that conflation, which is the one that we should oppose. What we should say to people is, “You can think whatever you want about Israel, but it should not influence the way you think about American Jews.” Just like you can think however you want about the people’s Republic of China, you can hate the people’s Republic of China and you shouldn’t take out your hostility on Chinese Americans. We should make exactly that same argument vis-a-vis Jews in Israel. But unfortunately, groups like the Anti-Defamation League say essentially the opposite.

    Marc Steiner:

    I was thinking about what you just said and the piece around what Tucker Carlson talks about when he talks about Israel and how that criticism from often the right and the religious right is a condemnation of Jews as almost satanic. I’ve been to a couple of churches where I actually have heard something like that from the pulpit when people told me about these ministers. So I went in to see and listen. I mean, it seems to me that we’re on a precipice in terms of our survival as a people and how we define ourselves, who we are as a people.

    Peter Beinart:

    I think the problem with someone like Tarfor Carlson is not that all of his criticisms of Israel are wrong. Some of his criticisms are very valid and his criticisms of this war are very valid. And I will even give him credit. He’s interviewed a lot of Palestinians. He’s given Palestinians more of a platform than they get in a lot of the media. The problem is that Tucker Carlson is still at his core an ethnonationalist, kind of an American Christian ethno nationalist. And so instead of saying, Israel is committing crimes of the same kind that countries of any racial or religious or ethnic group, including Americas, have committed settler colonialism. What is Israel doing to the Palestinians? In a lot of ways, it’s very similar to what America did to Native Americans, pushing people off of their land into smaller and smaller enclaves. Because Carlson wants to maintain the idea of American Christian moral superiority, he tends to often suggest that there’s something peculiarly Jewish about what Israel is doing.

    And that’s where I think the conversation becomes dangerous.

    Marc Steiner:

    So where do you think this reality goes in terms of the Jewish people in our country? I mean, when you see the debates inside of the Jewish world, the growing movement of not in our name.

    Peter Beinart:

    And so

    Marc Steiner:

    You’ve been covering this, watching it, writing about it. I really want to hear what your thoughts are about where you think this takes us.

    Peter Beinart:

    Well, I think there’s a struggle in the United States, which has to do with the idea that we should be a country that treats everybody equally under the law, irrespective of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and groups of people who want America to be a white Christian supremacist country, kind of ethnonationalist vision. And oftentimes those people who want America to be a white Christian supremacist nation also are comfortable with Israel’s version of ethnonationalism, with Israel being a Jewish supremacist nation as well. And so what you find among the most powerful Jewish organizations, let’s say APAC or the anti-defamation league, their number one concern is making sure that America supports Israel unconditionally, and they don’t mind if America becomes a white Christian supremacist nation as long as it supports Israel. And then you have another group of Jews who are fighting against this white Christian authoritarianism that we’re seeing in the Republican Party, and many of them are also fighting against ethnonationalism in Israel.

    They’re fighting for the principle of equality under the law, both here in America and in Israel-Palestine. And this is a kind of civil war within the Jewish community. As you know, it runs through many synagogues and many families where there’s a deep divide about this question. I fundamentally believe that American Jews and Jews in general are safer in countries where everybody is treated equally under the law and that the principle of Jewish supremacy and Christian supremacy and Hindu supremacy and Islamic supremacy, all of those things are wrong and that we should oppose the idea of any states giving legal preference to people based on their religion or their ethnicity or their race. It

    Marc Steiner:

    Has raised a lot of contradictions. I mean, one of the things I raise often with this is that in the 1960s, doing the civil rights movement that I was a part of, 60% of all the white civil rights workers were Jews.

    Peter Beinart:

    Right.

    Marc Steiner:

    And that’s not a mistake when you come from Holocaust surviving family,

    Peter Beinart:

    Surviving

    Marc Steiner:

    The pogroms that my family did both. So I mean, but I think that something has turned, and I wonder if through organizing, through argument, if that can be turned around.

    Peter Beinart:

    I hope it can. I think you’re entirely right that something turned. If you look at organized American Jewish life in the middle of the 20th century, in the 50s and the 60s, civil rights was a major focus. The Jewish organizations believed that if American Jews supported Black Americans in getting the right to vote and getting equal treatment, then that would also secure the place of Jews as being treated equally in America. It’s not a coincidence that the last quotas at Ivy League universities ended in the 60s as the civil rights movement was beginning to triumph because American Jews, I think, understood that if Black Americans failed in their effort towards move towards equality, then Jews would probably also be victims of greater discrimination. But what happened after the civil rights movement is that a lot of the American Jewish organizations shifted their focus and became essentially Israel defense organizations.

    There are various reasons for this, but basically starting really after the 67 war, you see this turn towards these organizations becoming Israel defense organizations. And the problem with defending Israel is first of all, it turns these organizations away from focusing on questions of justice in the United States. I mean, the most powerful American Jewish organization is now APAC. APAC has no concern whatsoever for what happens in the United States. So when APAC sees a politician like Donald Trump and they think about who should they should give money to, they don’t ask the question, “Does this person believe in American democracy? Does this person oppose bigotry in our country?” No. The only question they ask is, “Does this person support Israel enough?” And so you essentially have a kind of an abandonment by America’s most powerful Jewish organizations of their moral responsibility for what happens in the United States.

    And oftentimes they’re willing to support people who tried to overthrow the 2020 election so long as those people are supporters of Israel. And I think this really undermined the kind of commitment to democracy that we saw expressed during the civil rights movement by American Jews.

    Marc Steiner:

    And what you’re describing, I think also unleashes antisemitism. Questions who Jews are. Who are they loyal to? Who are you loyal to and why? Which is why you hear what Tucker Carlson and those guys are saying at this moment from the right. And I don’t think people actually in the Jewish world, the majority of people do not see what’s being unleashed and the dangers we face because of it.

    Peter Beinart:

    I certainly think the Jewish organization leaders are not willing to grapple and acknowledge with this problem. I mean, so for instance, we have these issues here where you have protests outside synagogues because the synagogues are say selling land in the West Bank. They’re selling land to settlers. This is land largely often stolen from Palestinians. And so you would think that the response for Jewish organization should be synagogues should not be doing this, right? Synagogues are placed to pray. They’re places to study Torah. They should not be involved in acts that are blatantly immoral, that are violations of international law. Instead of responding that way, the groups like the Anti-Defamation League basically say, “You see those protesters protesting outside of synagogues? They hate Jews that otherwise, why would they be protesting outside of synagogues?” What we should be saying is, of course we don’t want people protesting outside of synagogues, God forbid, but we need to make sure the synagogues don’t do things that are fundamentally immoral.

    And when they do those things, they conflate Jews and Israel’s immoral actions in ways that actually, I think really put Jews in danger and are also are just fundamentally wrong.

    Marc Steiner:

    I’m very curious where you think this, what we face now will take both Israelis and Balestinians and the United States. I have a poster on my wall that I got in Cuba in 1968 when I was a young radical and went down with the delegation to Cuba. And the poster I came back with was a map of all of the holy land, all of it with an Israeli flag on one side and a Palestinian flag on the other side and down the front of it over the map, the words were one state, two people, three faiths. And it’s kind of been my mantra for a long time.

    Peter Beinart:

    Yes.

    Marc Steiner:

    How realistic is that, do you think? Where the struggle goes today in terms of the growth in the Jewish population, young Jews saying, “No, not in our name.”

    Peter Beinart:

    It’s not realistic now, but the question is, can we make it realistic? I mean, there are lots of things. Civil rights was also not realistic in the United States in the 1920s or 30s or 40s. It was made realistic by a great movement that you were part of. Overturning apartheid was not realistic in the 1960s and 70s. In the 1980s and 90s, it became realistic because of the anti-apartheid movement. So I think we need a movement to change US policy. So the US is not complicit in Israel’s crimes. Europe needs to change its policy because Europe is very, very much connected in also its economic relationship and allowing what Israel is able to do to the Palestinians. And I think that could set in motion a different kind of political dynamic where perhaps we can move towards a just peace. Now, what exactly would it look like?

    I don’t know. But to me, and it’s not my decision, it’s the decision of the people who were there, but it seems to me the fundamental principle that I would argue for, which is I think similar to what was in that poster is wherever Jews and Palestinians live alongside each other, they should be treated equally under the law. We should not have Jews and Palestinians living alongside each other in which one group has superior legal rights to the other as exists today.

    Marc Steiner:

    I want to come back to the book, which I’ve been reading. I don’t have a hard copy, but I read it online, and I think that it’s a really important piece. And I just want to come back to that and talk a bit about people listening to us now about what that book is saying and how we get to this place in America with everything we face, with the right wing in power and growing in power, with the liberals and left in disarray, with Israel and being Jewish at the center of that struggle.

    Peter Beinart:

    What I argue in the book is that we Jews are fully human and being fully human means that we are capable of doing anything that any other group of humans are doing. We are not history’s permanent victims, that in every case, we are always the ones who are in the victim role, that we have been victimized terribly in moments in history. We could be again, but we are also capable of the same kind of terrible oppression, even genocide that other groups of people are. And recognizing that can allow us to see what’s happening in Israel-Palestine in a different way than many of us were raised to believe, which is basically that Palestinian opposition to Zionism and to Israel is just the same reincarnation of the antisemitism that threatened our parents or grandparents in Europe or wherever. That after if we look at the situation plainly, we can see that there is a system of very deep and profound oppression of Palestinians that exist.

    And that system, I believe, violates the core Jewish principle that all human beings are created equal in the image of God. And I also believe it puts Jews at risk. I think supremacist political systems make everybody less safe, and that the equation of Israel with Jews also makes Jews around the world less safe.

    Marc Steiner:

    We need to get Jew in your book to Baltimore.

    Peter Beinart:

    I would love to do it.

    Marc Steiner:

    So I’m going to write to you and I’m going to make that happen.

    Peter Beinart:

    Wonderful.

    Marc Steiner:

    Because I think people need to see this. The book, Being Jewish Yet for Destruction of Gaza, is I think a really profound book. And I didn’t know what to expect when I started, but you raise issues that need to be raised and the people need to wrestle with.

    Peter Beinart:

    Thank you. I really appreciate that.

    Marc Steiner:

    And I deeply appreciate you taking time with us today. My

    Peter Beinart:

    Pleasure.

    Marc Steiner:

    Peter Byner, always a pleasure to talk to you and we’ll get you here and we’ll talk some more.

    Peter Beinart:

    That’ll be great. Looking forward to it.

    Marc Steiner:

    All right. Take care, my friend.

    Peter Beinart:

    Take

    Marc Steiner:

    Care.

    Peter Beinart:

    All right. Be well.

    Marc Steiner:

    Once again, I want to thank Peter Beynard for joining us today. And you can see more of Peter Beynard’s work on his Substack. Peter Beinart, that’s P-E-T-E-R B-E-I-N-A-R-T at selfstack.com. And thanks to Cameron Brandino for running the program today, audio edit to Steven Frank for working his magic, Rosette Sowali for producing the Marc Steiner Show and the tireless Keller Rivera, making it all work behind the scenes, and everyone here at The Real News for making this show possible. So please let me know what you thought about what you heard today, what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com, and I’ll get right back to you. So once again, thank you to Peter Beinart for joining us today and for his tireless work. So for the crew here at the Real News, I’m Marc Steiner. Stay involved, keep listening, and take care.

    (more…)

  • This Congressional shortcut used to shower ICE with billions could create an authoritarian funding playbook

    Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., speaks to reporters as he leaves the House Republican Conference meeting in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, December 10, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
    ” data-image-caption=”

    Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., speaks to reporters as he leaves the House Republican Conference meeting in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, December 10, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

    ” data-large-file=”https://i0.wp.com/therealnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GettyImages-2250438823-scaled.jpg?fit=780%2C520&ssl=1″>

    Last week, Republicans in Congress passed a framework for a proposed round of funding for ICE and Border Patrol. The measure was intended to end an impasse over Department of Homeland Security funding, which lapsed over 10 weeks ago. 

    But the budgetary framework, which includes $70 billion for both agencies, came with a twist: No Democratic input needed.

    Republicans bypassed the normal budget process in a move The Hill said sets a “dangerous precedent” and could lead to one-sided steamrolling to secure unilateral funding for unpopular policies like continuing the US-Israeli War with Iran.

    To secure funding without a single vote from any Congressional Democrat, Republicans have invoked an arcane procedure known as “reconciliation,” a legislative maneuver that allows a bill to bypass the Senate filibuster, provided it meets certain criteria. Their reason for deploying it? To sidestep opposition from Democrats, who had declined to fund ICE or CBP without reforms, and the democratic process altogether.

    Democrats have been demanding ICE and CBP agents stop wearing masks, use body cameras, and discontinue raids on homes without warrants, among other stipulations, in exchange for funding the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans refused to concede on any of these issues, and a 76-day shutdown ensued.

    But this week, Republicans decided to go it alone, and their effort may be successful. As a result, the passage of the budget framework through the reconciliation process is an alarming move for a party that has already demonstrated a clear willingness to discard democratic norms, processes, and guardrails.

    The framework also left a lot of questions unanswered, including: Why the additional money for controversial agencies that already received nearly $140 billion from “The Big Beautiful Bill”?

    We posed that exact question to Republican Congressman Mike Lawler on the steps of Capitol Hill. He declined to provide specifics.

    ​“That’s the cost of funding the department. Are you for abolishing ICE?” he replied. “You understand that is the appropriate amount?”

    Since early last year, at the behest of President Trump, federal agents have flooded Democratically governed “blue cities” like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Chicago, deploying unconstitutional tactics, precipitating confrontations, and killing at least three American citizens.

    DHS now has a record 73,000 detainees jailed across the country, the result of the Trump administration’s brutal “mass deportation” campaign and policy changes that, among other acts, no longer allow recent immigrants to remain free in the US while awaiting their asylum hearings.

    Meanwhile, Lawler and his colleagues seem determined to use the reconciliation process to circumvent Democratic opponents and fund other MAGA priorities. Republican Congressman Mike Flood told us he anticipates another round of reconciliation to pay for the war with Iran.

    “This, for me, makes the case for reconciliation 3.0,” Flood said when asked to explain the need for additional ICE funding. “We have to pay for the effort in Iran.”

    Decades ago, Congress adhered to a budgeting method called “regular order.” It was a process established by a 1974 law called the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which required public hearings on appropriations for individual agencies, along with testimony and debate.

    But partisan politics, from Democrats and Republicans, forced that process into stopgap measures such as continuing resolutions and massive omnibus spending bills. The shift pushed negotiations over funding measures into the upper chambers of the House and Senate leadership, with public hearings and debate almost entirely abandoned.

    Still, reconciliation has not been used for routine agency budgeting—until now.

    Reconciliation requires the passage of a framework that instructs the appropriate committees to draft legislation to submit to the Senate parliamentarian. The parliamentarian then decides if the legislation qualifies for the exemption. A bill is considered eligible if it has a “non-incidental” fiscal impact and meets several other criteria.

    Democrats fear this unprecedented use of reconciliation will allow Republicans to throw even more money at agencies like ICE for dubious or openly nefarious reasons.

    “That’s why I go back to the lead-up to November,” Democrat congressman Rob Menendez said at a press conference last week. “I am worried they would use the $70 billion to have ICE and CBP in blue districts across the county to try to intimidate voters.”

    Menendez explained that one of the Democrats’ demands to fund DHS focused entirely on keeping ICE and CBP out of the electoral fray in the upcoming midterm elections. Another demand Republicans rejected.

    “One of the reforms we have asked for over and over again during the partial shutdown is to guarantee that they will not. And they have not agreed to those terms.”

    ​Still, if Congressional Republicans are able to shower more cash on ICE and CBP without majority consent from the voters or even participation from the other governing party, it would suggest we’re entering uncharted terrain and a new phase in MAGA’s monopoly on fiscal and political power. 

    ​The question is: Can anything, or will anyone, stop them?

    (more…)

  • Top Jordan Sneaker Releases in May 2026

    May 2026 is loaded with strong Jordan drops, from retro heat to highly anticipated collaborations. Whether you are after a bold classic, a clean seasonal pair, or one of the month’s biggest hype releases, there is plenty to circle on the calendar.

    Note: Release dates and pricing are always subject to change.

    1. Air Jordan 4 GS “Infrared 23”

    Release Date: May 1, 2026
    Price: $165

    The month starts off with the Air Jordan 4 GS “Infrared 23,” a grade-school exclusive that mixes a black upper with bright mango, barely volt, and infrared accents. It is one of the louder Jordan drops on the May calendar and should stand out immediately on foot.

    2. Air Jordan 4 “Toro Bravo”

    Release Date: May 2, 2026
    Price: $220

    One of the biggest retro returns of the month, the Air Jordan 4 “Toro Bravo” brings back its signature fire red suede upper with black, white, and cement grey detailing. This is the kind of release that longtime Jordan fans have been waiting to see return.

    3. Air Jordan 11 Low WMNS “Mother’s Day”

    Release Date: May 2, 2026
    Price: $195

    The Air Jordan 11 Low WMNS “Mother’s Day” gives the classic low-top silhouette a softer seasonal feel with a white upper and metallic gold finish. It is one of the cleaner lifestyle-focused Jordan releases scheduled for May.

    4. Air Jordan 1 Low OG “Banned”

    Release Date: May 16, 2026
    Price: $145

    The iconic black and varsity red look lands on the Air Jordan 1 Low OG “Banned,” giving one of Jordan Brand’s most famous color stories a low-top summer-ready format. For many sneaker fans, this is easily one of the best value pickups of the month.

    5. Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP “Muslin/Shy Pink”

    Release Date: May 22, 2026
    Price: $155

    The Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP “Muslin/Shy Pink” is one of the most anticipated May 2026 drops. The pair combines muslin, shy pink, sail, and university red while continuing the run of Travis Scott Jordan 1 Low releases that always draw major attention.

    6. Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP “Sail/Tropical Pink”

    Release Date: May 22, 2026
    Price: $155

    Jordan Brand is also expected to drop a second Travis Scott Air Jordan 1 Low on the same day in a “Sail/Tropical Pink” makeup. With both pairs landing on May 22, that release date could become the biggest Jordan launch day of the month.

    7. Air Jordan 3 “World’s Best Dad”

    Release Date: May 30, 2026
    Price: $215

    Closing out the month is the Air Jordan 3 “World’s Best Dad,” a themed release dressed in Sail, Black, University Red, Pale Ivory, and Palomino. It brings a more story-driven feel to the end of May and offers a different lane from the louder retro and collaboration drops earlier in the month.

    Final Thoughts

    May 2026 has a little bit of everything: a bold retro in the “Toro Bravo” 4, a seasonal Air Jordan 11 Low, a classic-inspired “Banned” low, and two Travis Scott collaborations that will likely dominate the conversation. Add in the “World’s Best Dad” Air Jordan 3 and it is easy to see why May is shaping up to be one of the strongest Jordan release months of 2026.

    The post Top Jordan Sneaker Releases in May 2026 appeared first on The Hoop Doctors.

    (more…)

  • 2025-26 NBA MVP Prediction: Why Victor Wembanyama Has the Strongest Case

    With the 2025-26 NBA regular season entering its final stretch, the MVP race has come down to three truly elite candidates: Victor Wembanyama, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and Nikola Jokic. All three have delivered seasons worthy of serious consideration, and in many years, each one would have a legitimate argument to win the award.

    But if I had to predict the winner today, I would pick Victor Wembanyama.

    That is not a slight to Gilgeous-Alexander, who has been the best scoring guard in basketball on a dominant Oklahoma City team, or to Jokic, who has once again produced one of the most extraordinary all-around offensive seasons the league has ever seen. It is simply a recognition that Wembanyama’s combination of elite production, team success, defensive dominance, and late-season momentum gives him the strongest overall MVP case right now.

    The Top Three MVP Candidates

    1. Victor Wembanyama, San Antonio Spurs

    Wembanyama has turned the MVP conversation into a true debate because his impact goes far beyond traditional box-score volume. He is averaging 24.7 points, 11.5 rebounds, and 3.1 blocks per game, while leading a Spurs team that has surged to 59-18 and the No. 2 spot in the Western Conference.

    Those numbers are impressive on their own, but the context makes them even stronger. Wembanyama is anchoring one of the league’s best teams while providing game-changing value on both ends of the floor. Offensively, he creates matchup problems no defense can comfortably solve. Defensively, he alters entire game plans. That matters in an MVP race where the margins are this small.

    2. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Oklahoma City Thunder

    Gilgeous-Alexander has been brilliant all season and remains a completely credible MVP pick. He is averaging 31.6 points, 4.4 rebounds, and 6.5 assists per game for an Oklahoma City team that owns the league’s best record at 61-16.

    His case begins with consistency. Night after night, Gilgeous-Alexander delivers efficient, controlled offense and has been the engine of the NBA’s most successful regular-season team. There is tremendous value in being the best player on the best team, and that reality is why he remains so close to the top of this race.

    3. Nikola Jokic, Denver Nuggets

    Jokic is having another historic season, averaging 27.7 points, 13.0 rebounds, and 10.8 assists per game for Denver. A center averaging a triple-double is remarkable enough. Doing it for a second straight season places him in rare territory even by his own standards.

    From a purely offensive standpoint, Jokic may still be the most impactful player in basketball. He controls pace, creates efficient shots for everyone on the floor, and remains the most versatile offensive hub in the league. The issue for his MVP case is not production. It is team standing. Denver, at 49-28, simply has not matched the regular-season dominance of Oklahoma City or San Antonio.

    Why I Think Wembanyama Will Win

    The strongest MVP argument this year comes down to total impact, not just offensive excellence or scoring volume. That is where Wembanyama separates himself.

    Gilgeous-Alexander has the edge in scoring and has led the team with the best record. Jokic has the most historic all-around offensive stat line. But Wembanyama offers something neither of them quite matches: elite value on both ends of the floor at the same time, on a team that has won at an MVP-worthy level.

    His 24.7 points and 11.5 rebounds already put him in superstar territory. Add 3.1 blocks per game, and the picture changes from “great season” to “franchise-defining dominance.” He is not just a productive defender. He is a defense by himself. That kind of impact is difficult to overstate. When voters are comparing players this close, defense becomes a major separator.

    That is the key point in Wembanyama’s favor. Gilgeous-Alexander has been phenomenal, but his MVP case is built mostly on elite offense, efficiency, and team success. Jokic’s case is built mostly on historic offensive control and statistical brilliance. Wembanyama combines high-end offensive production with defensive influence that can completely reshape a game.

    And unlike many past candidates whose defensive value came with lower team results, Wembanyama’s team success is fully in the MVP range. The Spurs are not a feel-good surprise story anymore. They are one of the league’s top teams. That matters.

    Why Wembanyama Deserves It More Than Gilgeous-Alexander

    Gilgeous-Alexander’s argument is straightforward and powerful: he scores more, he creates efficiently, and he has led the NBA’s best team. In many seasons, that would be enough to make him the clear favorite.

    But this season, Wembanyama closes the gap in team success while providing a much larger defensive edge. Oklahoma City’s record is better, but San Antonio’s record is also elite. The difference between first and second in the West is meaningful, yet it is not so overwhelming that it should erase Wembanyama’s advantage as a rim protector, rebounder, and overall defensive force.

    If the question is which player does more to affect every possession on both sides of the ball, Wembanyama has the stronger answer. Gilgeous-Alexander may be the more polished offensive closer right now, but Wembanyama influences the game in more dimensions.

    Why Wembanyama Deserves It More Than Joki?

    Jokic has the most historically unusual stat line of the three candidates, and no serious MVP discussion can dismiss a center averaging a triple-double. He remains one of the most unique players the league has ever seen.

    However, MVP is rarely awarded in a vacuum. Team performance matters, and Denver’s record lags behind both Oklahoma City and San Antonio. When one candidate is producing at a superstar level on a 59-win team and another is doing the same on a team outside the top two in its conference, that difference becomes difficult to ignore.

    Wembanyama also has the far stronger defensive case. Jokic orchestrates offense at a historically high level, but Wembanyama can control an entire game defensively in a way almost no player in the league can. That two-way edge gives Wembanyama the cleaner overall MVP profile.

    Final Prediction

    This has been one of the deepest MVP races in recent memory. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has the best player-on-the-best-team argument. Nikola Joki? has the most statistically historic offensive season. But Victor Wembanyama has the most complete case.

    He has produced star-level offense, elite rebounding, dominant rim protection, and top-tier team success. He has not just been spectacular. He has been the kind of player who changes both ends of the floor every single night.

    My prediction: Victor Wembanyama wins the 2025-26 NBA MVP.

    In a race this close, the deciding factor should be total value. And no candidate has provided more complete value this season than Wembanyama.

    The post 2025-26 NBA MVP Prediction: Why Victor Wembanyama Has the Strongest Case appeared first on The Hoop Doctors.

    (more…)