RSS
Bella Abzug documentary aims to restore the Jewish congresswoman’s trailblazing legacy
(JTA) — Bella Abzug, the feminist who burst into Congress battling for equal rights in 1970, was often caricatured in the media of her time. She was labeled “belligerent” and “bellicose Bella” in newspapers, parodied on television and shamed for everything from her body to her Jewishness to her signature wide-brimmed hats.
In just six years as a New York Representative, Abzug demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam, wrote legislation to protect the environment and fought discrimination against women, LGBTQ people and Black Americans. But five decades later, her name is far less known than those of some of her peers in the second wave feminist movement — such as journalist Gloria Steinem and “The Feminine Mystique” author Betty Friedan.
Jeff L. Lieberman hopes to finally pay her due with his documentary “Bella!,” opening in New York City and Los Angeles theaters on Friday. Lieberman interviewed several women in politics and the arts who credit Abzug with blazing a path for them to follow, even though their names are more famous than hers: Steinem, Hillary Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Shirley MacLaine, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are a few of the heavy hitters.
Lieberman started learning about Jewish feminists as a child in Vancouver, Canada — and not only from his mother, who became the family’s earner while his father assumed household duties in the 1980s. Their shelves were lined with books by Jewish feminists such as Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Anita Diamant. They sang songs by Debbie Friedman and proudly watched Steinem on the news. Yet Abzug’s name was hardly mentioned, he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“Looking back on it, she should have been this huge Jewish hero for all of us — a Jewish woman in Congress who was really sticking it to the institution,” said Lieberman, whose previous documentaries include “The Amazing Nina Simone” and “Re-Emerging: The Jews of Nigeria.” “Had the press been more fair and less misogynistic, we probably would have known Bella throughout a lot of Jewish households in the ‘80s. But because she was cast as a slightly odd figure, yelling with a hat, we didn’t really know her. ”
Abzug’s Jewish upbringing was central to the development of her progressive politics, according to Leandra Zarnow, who is interviewed in the documentary and wrote “Battling Bella: The Protest Politics of Bella Abzug.”
Abzug was born to Russian-Jewish immigrants in the Bronx in July 1920, one month before women won the right to vote. As a child, she was looked after by her grandfather Wolf Taklefsky, an Orthodox Jew who took her to synagogue and loved showing off her aptitude for learning Hebrew.
Hillary Clinton is a featured speaker in “Bella! This Woman’s Place is in The House.” (Courtesy of Re-Emerging Films)
“At the core, Bella Abzug was fueled by a sense of commitment to ‘tikkun olam,’ the idea of repairing the world,” Zarnow told JTA. “All of her elders really instilled in her that she needed to do unto others better than done unto her, so her social justice and her ethical core really were fired by that idea.”
When Abzug was in junior high in the early 1930s, she became involved in Hashomer Hatzair, a Labor Zionist youth movement with the Marxist ideal of a binational Jewish-Arab worker state. At 12 years old, she was already so enraptured by political organizing that she disobeyed her father’s curfew to make her first speeches at New York City subway stops.
“In the 1960s and ‘70s, Bella Abzug is very much an ally to the Black Power movement and other types of ethnic nationalist movements, because of the fact that she came into her politics and her own sense of self-determination through Hashomer Hatzair,” said Zarnow.
Abzug’s father died unexpectedly when she was 13. She decided to say Kaddish for him, a mourning prayer traditionally recited by male children for 11 months after a loved one’s death. Abzug had no male siblings and did not hesitate to take over the prayer every day at the front of her Orthodox synagogue.
“They looked askance at me for doing that,” Abzug said in a recording played in the documentary. “Nobody embraced me, no one said ‘how wonderful’ or helped me. I sort of stood there by myself, isolated… And it was in those early days behind the curtain [separating men and women in Orthodox synagogues] that I probably got my first ideas of feminism.”
Before running for office, Abzug was for 25 years a lawyer focused on defending the rights of labor union workers, Black Americans and individuals targeted by the House Un-American Activities Committee during the McCarthy era. Facing sexism as a young attorney, Abzug started wearing her trademark floppy hats to distinguish that she was not anyone’s secretary.
In one of her best-known cases, she defended Willie McGee, a Black man who was accused of raping a white woman in Mississippi and sentenced to death in 1945. The all-white, all-male jury presented a guilty verdict in two-and-a-half minutes.
The case took an enormous personal toll. In Jackson, where McGee was tried, a local newspaper wrote that “they should burn Willie McGee’s white woman lawyer along with him in the electric chair.” Abzug traveled to Jackson at eight months pregnant and found that no hotel would let her stay. Fear struck her when a taxi driver said he knew a place “far from town” where he was prepared to take her. She spent that night in a bus station bathroom, where she miscarried, before appearing in court the next morning.
She won a stay of execution, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear McGee’s final appeal. He was killed in an electric chair in 1951.
In 1961, Abzug co-founded Women Strike for Peace, which drew about 50,000 women to the streets to protest the testing of nuclear weapons. The group helped push a nuclear test ban treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union, and it later shifted its focus to ending the Vietnam War.
Abzug then won a seat in Congress at age 50 in 1970, becoming one of only 12 women in the 435-member House of Representatives. In Washington, she co-authored the Water Pollution Act of 1972 (now known as the Clean Water Act), then the country’s most comprehensive environmental legislation. She introduced the Equal Credit Act of 1974 — which gave women the economic independence to apply for credit cards and loans in their own names — and the first bill to protect gay people from discrimination in U.S. history, which won only a handful of votes.
Bella Abzug was sworn into Congress on Jan. 21, 1971. (Courtesy of Marion S. Trikosko, Library of Congress)
As chair of a subcommittee on government information and individual rights, she co-authored the Freedom of Information Act, the Right to Privacy Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act that required government hearings to be held in public. While calling CIA Director William Colby to testify, she discovered that the CIA had been spying on her for about 30 years. She was also the first member of Congress to call for President Richard Nixon’s impeachment and helped pass a bill to defund the Vietnam War.
In 1976, Abzug took the risk of giving up her House seat to run for Senate, where a woman had never sat before. She lost in the primary to Daniel Patrick Moynihan by less than 1%. More losses followed in her races for mayor of New York City and Congress again, as cultural tides shifted to the right and Reaganism halted progressive strides in the 1980s.
Still, she never stopped fighting for her agenda on different stages. In the last two decades of her life, she presided over the first National Women’s Conference in Houston, founded the grassroots political action group Women USA and turned to international politics, transforming the United Nations’ efforts to empower women across the globe as president of the Women’s Environmental and Development Organization (WEDO).
The politically and culturally powerful women interviewed in “Bella!” saw themselves as Abzug’s children, according to Lieberman. Her biological children Eve and Liz Abzug, who are also interviewed, said she tirelessly pushed for her causes at the cost of her personal life.
All of the women interviewees described paying a long overdue tribute to a woman whose shoulders they stood on, who sometimes shattered herself along with the glass ceiling.
“They just knew that she really opened the door and blazed in and had to make a lot of sacrifices for being one of the first,” said Lieberman. “She sacrificed her own career, her own likability, her own personal joy because she had to be a tough person and go headfirst into institutions.”
—
The post Bella Abzug documentary aims to restore the Jewish congresswoman’s trailblazing legacy appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future
A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.
Here’s a fact from history you may not know. In 1667, the Dutch and the British struck a trade deal that, in retrospect, seems so bizarre that it defies belief.
As part of the Treaty of Breda — a pact that ended the Second Anglo-Dutch War and aimed to solidify territorial claims between the two powers — the Dutch ceded control of Manhattan to the British.
Yes, that Manhattan — the self-proclaimed center of the universe (at least according to New Yorkers), home to Wall Street, Times Square, and those famously overpriced bagels.
And what did the Dutch get in return? Another island — tiny Run, part of the Banda Islands in Indonesia.
To put things in perspective, Run is minuscule compared to Manhattan — barely 3 square kilometers, or roughly half the size of Central Park. Today, it’s a forgotten dot on the map, with a population of less than 2,000 people and no significant industry beyond subsistence farming. But in the 17th century, Run was a prized gem worth its weight in gold — or rather, nutmeg gold.
Nutmeg was the Bitcoin of its day, an exotic spice that Europeans coveted so desperately they were willing to risk life and limb. Just by way of example, during the early spice wars, the Dutch massacred and enslaved the native Bandanese people to seize control of the lucrative nutmeg trade.
From our modern perspective, the deal seems ridiculous — Manhattan for a pinch of nutmeg? But in the context of the 17th century, it made perfect sense. Nutmeg was the crown jewel of global trade, and controlling its supply meant immense wealth and influence. For the Dutch, securing Run was a strategic move, giving them dominance in the spice trade, and, let’s be honest, plenty of bragging rights at fancy Dutch banquets.
But history has a funny way of reshaping perspectives. What seemed like a brilliant play in its time now looks like a colossal miscalculation — and the annals of history are filled with similar trades that, in hindsight, make us scratch our heads and wonder, what were they thinking?
Another contender for history’s Hall of Fame in ludicrous trades is the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was strapped for cash and eager to fund his military campaigns, sold a vast swath of North America to the nascent United States for a mere $15 million. The sale included 828,000 square miles — that’s about four cents an acre — that would become 15 states, including the fertile Midwest and the resource-rich Rocky Mountains.
But to Napoleon, this was a strategic no-brainer. He even called the sale “a magnificent bargain,” boasting that it would “forever disarm” Britain by strengthening its rival across the Atlantic. At the time, the Louisiana Territory was seen as a vast, undeveloped expanse that was difficult to govern and defend. Napoleon viewed it as a logistical burden, especially with the looming threat of British naval power. By selling the territory, he aimed to bolster France’s finances and focus on European conflicts.
Napoleon wasn’t shy about mocking his enemies for their mistakes, once quipping, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” But in this case, it’s tempting to imagine him swallowing those words as the United States grew into a global superpower thanks, in no small part, to his so-called bargain.
While he may have considered Louisiana to be a logistical headache — too far away and too vulnerable to British attacks — the long-term implications of the deal were staggering. What Napoleon dismissed as a far-off backwater turned out to be the world’s breadbasket, not to mention the backbone of America’s westward expansion.
Like the Dutch and their nutmeg gamble, Napoleon made a trade that no doubt seemed brilliant at the time — but, with hindsight, turned into a world-class blunder. It’s the kind of decision that reminds us just how hard it is to see past the urgency of the moment and anticipate the full scope of consequences.
Which brings me to Esav. You’d think Esav, the firstborn son of Yitzchak and Rivka, would have his priorities straight. He was the guy — heir to a distinguished dynasty that stretched back to his grandfather Abraham, who single-handedly changed the course of human history.
But one fateful day, as recalled at the beginning of Parshat Toldot, Esav stumbles home from a hunting trip, exhausted and ravenous. The aroma of Yaakov’s lentil stew hits him like a truck. “Pour me some of that red stuff!” he demands, as if he’s never seen food before.
Yaakov, never one to pass up an opportunity, doesn’t miss a beat.
“Sure, but only in exchange for your birthright,” he counters casually, as if such transactions are as common as trading baseball cards. And just like that, Esav trades his birthright for a bowl of soup. No lawyers, no witnesses, not even a handshake — just an impulsive decision fueled by hunger and a staggering lack of foresight.
The Torah captures the absurdity of the moment: Esav claims to be “on the verge of death” and dismisses the birthright as worthless. Any future value — material or spiritual — is meaningless to him in that moment. All that matters is satisfying his immediate needs.
So, was it really such a terrible deal? Psychologists have a term for Esav’s behavior: hyperbolic discounting — a fancy term for our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over bigger, long-term benefits.
It’s the same mental quirk that makes splurging on a gadget feel better than saving for retirement, or binge-watching a series more appealing than preparing for an exam. For Esav, the stew wasn’t just a meal — it was the instant solution to his discomfort, a quick fix that blinded him to the larger, long-term value of his birthright.
It’s the classic trade-off between now and later: the craving for immediate gratification often comes at the expense of something far more significant. Esav’s impulsive decision wasn’t just about hunger — it was about losing sight of the future in the heat of the moment.
Truthfully, it’s easy to criticize Esav for his shortsightedness, but how often do we fall into the same trap? We skip meaningful opportunities because they feel inconvenient or uncomfortable in the moment, opting for the metaphorical lentil stew instead of holding out for the birthright.
But the Torah doesn’t include this story just to make Esav look bad. It’s there to highlight the contrast between Esav and Yaakov — the choices that define them and, by extension, us.
Esav represents the immediate, the expedient, the here-and-now. Yaakov, our spiritual forebear, is the embodiment of foresight and patience. He sees the long game and keeps his eye on what truly matters: Abraham and Yitzchak’s legacy and the Jewish people’s spiritual destiny.
The message of Toldot is clear: the choices we make in moments of weakness have the power to shape our future — and the future of all who come after us. Esav’s impulsiveness relegated him to a footnote in history, like the nutmeg island of Run or France’s control over a vast portion of North America.
Meanwhile, Yaakov’s ability to think beyond the moment secured him a legacy that continues to inspire and guide us to this day — a timeless reminder that true greatness is not built in a moment of indulgence, but in the patience to see beyond it.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Violating US Law, Palestinian Authority Brags That It’s Responsible for ICC Arrest Warrants
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands, Feb. 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
US law prohibits the Palestinian Authority (PA) from receiving aid from the Economic Support Fund if it works with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israel.
Nevertheless, the PA, which has been receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid in recent years through multiple channels, played a leading role in the ICC’s case against Israel, and is now bragging about it:
International law researcher Jihad Al-Harazin: “We are beginning to see the fruits of the political, legal, and diplomatic efforts that the Palestinian leadership has undertaken over many years.
Since Palestine joined the ICC, it has been submitting daily requests to the ICC Prosecutor … about everything happening on Palestinian soil … We had to join this court, and our membership did not come out of a vacuum rather from extensive diplomatic efforts, led particularly by President Mahmoud Abbas …
From this, a brilliant political vision emerged that would force the occupation’s leaders to be brought before the most important international body for justice, the ICC, so they would be held accountable for their crimes. This leads us to appreciate the foresight and wisdom of President Mahmoud Abbas’ vision when he decided to join the ICC. [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, From the Capitals, November 25, 2024]
Al-Harazin’s lauding of Mahmoud Abbas’ wisdom follows a PA official announcement that it welcomes the ICC decision, and will continue to work to help the ICC in the case:
The State of Palestine Thursday welcomed the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former ‘Defense’ Minister Yoav Gallant …
It affirmed that it would continue to engage with international justice institutions and courts until all criminals who committed and are still committing crimes against the Palestinian people are held accountable to ensure justice and fairness to Palestinians. [emphasis added]
[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, Nov. 21, 2024]
Both the official statement and Al-Harazin’s bragging follow an admission by another official that the PA is actively participating in the ICC case against Israel:
Director of PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs Qadura Fares: “We in the [PLO] Commission of Prisoners’ [Affairs] and the [PA-funded] Prisoners’ Club, are documenting all the crimes.
We are cooperating with the committee that was established by decision of [PA] President [Abbas], a professional committee led by [PA] Attorney General Akram Al-Khatib. It is documenting the appropriate testimonies according to the required criteria so that these testimonies will be accepted before the ICC … [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Nov. 14, 2024]
American law is very clear about prohibiting the PA from receiving anything from the Economic Support Fund if it helps the ICC.
The 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act states:
None of the funds appropriated under the heading “Economic Support Fund” in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act … the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.”
Palestinian Media Watch already exposed in May 2021 how Jamil Sajadiyeh, the director of the PA Attorney’s Office for International Legal Cooperation, described the intensive PA-ICC cooperation:
Head of the PA Attorney’s Office for International Legal Cooperation Jamil Sajadiyeh: “There are efforts that have been made with or planned through joint meetings with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Around 80 meetings have been held between Palestine and the ICC, of course with the office of ICC General Prosecutor [Fatou Bensouda]. There are nearly 60 cases and letters that have been submitted, all of them telling about the Israeli violations. Monthly reports are being submitted to the ICC via the general prosecutor through the PA Ministry of Foreign Affairs. .. Palestine has submitted all it can in order to carry out these investigations … according to the instructions of His Honor President [Abbas] and all the relevant parties.” [emphasis added]
[Official Palestinian Authority TV, May 25, 2021]
The PA has been gloating over its achievements at the ICC and taking credit throughout the process. In May, when the ICC prosecutor submitted the requests for the arrest warrants, a Fatah official declared:
Fatah Jenin Branch member Nasri Hamamreh: “The political and diplomatic efforts … reached their height upon the achievement of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision. We as the Palestinian people view this as an achievement that can be added to a series of accumulated achievements
… It is an achievement for the wise leader of the Palestinian people [Mahmoud Abbas] who thinks of every way possible to bolster the Palestinian people’s resilience and to push the Israeli occupation into a corner, and to expose it, to expose its true ugly face to all the nations of the world.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, May 21, 2024]
Tayseer Nasrallah, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council who also said earlier this year that the ICC decision was a fruit of PA labor, now exclaimed that Palestinians were “living in a state of euphoria and joy” over the decision:
Fatah Revolutionary Council member Tayseer Nasrallah: “A courageous decision was made by the International Criminal Court, and we welcome their taking this position. We also welcome the countries that immediately acceded [to the warrant], especially the member states of the International Criminal Court.
Indeed, we are now living in a state of euphoria and joy that the world has begun to see this entity as a terrorist, criminal, and spurned entity that is in a state of isolation, with everyone acting against it. Netanyahu, Gallant, and the entire criminal gang who are still committing genocide and starvation against our people in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Lebanon cannot leave [the country].”
[Official PA TV, November 24, 2024]
The PA is in good company, as Hamas also welcomed the decision:
Hamas Movement Political Bureau member Izzat Al-Rishq said that regardless of whether there is a possibility of implementing the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision, the truth that was revealed is that international justice is on our side and is against the Zionist entity. In a press release, Al-Rishq said: ‘This growing awareness and the exposure of the true terrorist face of the occupying entity (i.e., Israel) serves the Palestinian interest, the future of our cause, and our goal – liberation that will necessarily come, Allah willing.’ [emphasis added]
[Palestinian Information Center website (Hamas), Nov. 21, 2024]
Since the PA has indeed been actively and vigorously supporting the ICC’s case against Israel, it has been making a mockery of American wishes and legislation. It will only have itself to blame if and when the US government abides by the letter and intent of American law, and cuts off funding.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is PMW’s Founder and Director. A version of this article was originally published by PMW.
The post Violating US Law, Palestinian Authority Brags That It’s Responsible for ICC Arrest Warrants first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
BBC Silent as Journalists Urged to ‘Wear Keffiyeh to Work’ for Palestinian ‘Solidarity’ Day
The BBC logo is seen at the entrance at Broadcasting House, the BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA.
“Wear something red, green, black, or a Palestinian keffiyeh to visibly show solidarity.”
That’s the work attire directive from the Trades Union Congress (TUC), the UK’s largest umbrella group representing 48 trade unions and over 5.5 million workers, for the so-called “day of action” on November 28.
Among the unions endorsing this call — described by a BBC journalist as a “shocking attack on Jews” — is the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). This is the same NUJ that claims to be the “voice for journalism and journalists in the UK and Ireland” and represents tens of thousands of journalists, including many senior BBC staff.
Tomorrow, the UK’s National Union of Journalists is encouraging its members to “wear something red, green, black or a Palestinian keffiyeh to visibly show solidarity” with Palestinians.
So much for objective reporting on Israel from British journalists.https://t.co/0Q1mYThgxw pic.twitter.com/p6aFittRgO
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 27, 2024
In its statement, the NUJ announced it was participating in the action, citing “records [that] show at least 135 Palestinian journalists have been killed since October 7, 2023.” The union further accused the Israeli government of “attacks and killings of journalists.”
The statement’s glaring omission of the events of October 7, 2023, is both striking and deliberate. That was the day that Hamas launched a murderous rampage into Israel, killing approximately 1,000 civilians, including journalists.
Yet the NUJ’s narrative erases the context of the massacre that ignited the current conflict in Gaza, and fails to acknowledge the Israeli journalists killed by Hamas terrorists.
This selective reporting raises another critical question: how many of the “135 Palestinian journalists” cited by the NUJ were directly involved in Hamas’ atrocities on October 7?
And how many of these people were propagandists working for Hamas-backed outlets such as Al-Aqsa TV or the pro-terror mouthpiece Al Jazeera, rather than legitimate journalists?
The NUJ’s decision to back this so-called “solidarity” campaign also blatantly violates its own code of conduct, specifically relating to material “likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.”
Apparently, these rules don’t extend to protecting Jews or Israelis.
Even more troubling is the NUJ’s membership roster, which includes hundreds of BBC journalists. These individuals are now being encouraged to display open support for Palestinians — a move that flagrantly violates the BBC’s impartiality guidelines.
One BBC journalist, speaking anonymously to The Times, described the NUJ’s actions as “hypocritical and antisemitic” and a “shocking attack on Jews.” The employee noted that the move would prompt them to reconsider their membership in the union.
“BBC journalists, who pride themselves on impartiality and who fought to keep their NUJ free of politics, are being encouraged to break the BBC’s editorial guidelines by supporting a political cause,” they said. “Where is the day of action to support the journalists being killed by their own governments across the Middle East, including by Hamas?”
Another BBC staffer shared their unease, saying they were “dreading the thought of walking past anyone protesting at work.”
True to form, the BBC has refused to condemn the NUJ’s attempt to politicize its newsroom. Instead, it has opted for the spineless silence that it has become infamous for.
By saying nothing, the BBC is effectively abandoning its pretense of impartiality, allowing its Jewish employees to feel intimidated, and continuing its descent into becoming a battleground for political ideologies.
Funded by the wallets of British taxpayers, the BBC carries a great responsibility. It is not financed exclusively by pro-Palestinian activists or left-wing ideologues, but by everyone in the UK: Men and women, white and black, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and everyone else.
Polling consistently reflects this diversity of opinion, showing the British public does not overwhelmingly back the Palestinian cause; in fact, the opposite is often true.
The BBC faced its most intense criticism yet when it was found to have breached its own guidelines in reporting on the Israel-Hamas conflict more than 1,500 times since the war began.
That scandal, which emerged in September, should have been the wake-up call the BBC desperately needed.
Instead, the organization seems intent on signing its own death warrant. If the BBC continues alienating the very people who pay for its existence, it will not survive.
Meanwhile, the NUJ’s blatant pro-Palestinian advocacy calls into question how its members can possibly reconcile the need for professional, objective journalism with the actions of their trade union.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post BBC Silent as Journalists Urged to ‘Wear Keffiyeh to Work’ for Palestinian ‘Solidarity’ Day first appeared on Algemeiner.com.