Uncategorized
A glimpse of the Jewish left in 1920s Palestine
Boom and Chains
by Hanan Ayalti, translated by Adi Mahalel
Wayne State University Press, 312 pages, $34.99
Boom and Chains, by the Yiddish writer Hanan Ayalti, is a sweeping, morally urgent novel of Mandate-era Palestine that marries socialist ambition, Zionist dreams and the lived terrain of Arab dispossession.
First serialized in Warsaw in 1940 and now translated into English by Adi Mahalel, the book reads less like a period curiosity than a dispatch from the very core of 20th-century Jewish history. Its cadences are elegiac and insurgent at once, never letting the reader forget that every utopian project is built on contested soil.
This edition includes a prologue — reprinted at the back as an appendix — that looks back at kibbutz life in Poland and traces how Ayalti’s characters first took shape ideologically. The prologue is not essential to the plot, but it frames the psychic foundation of utopian commitment: how a generation could inherit the dream of community, sacrifice and labor long before setting foot in Palestine. The translator’s glossary and notes guide readers through dense terms of socialist-Zionist vocabulary, from halutzim, which means pioneers, to the nuanced phrase, “building through work.”
The main narrative unfolds in three parts: “Kibbutz,” “Land and Work” and “God and Money.” These sections map not only the external struggles of settlement but also the inner fractures of its pioneers. When Zalmen, the central figure, lands in Jaffa, the novel enacts collision immediately — Arab boatmen unloading cargo, British officials announcing strikes, Jewish pioneers hammering tents into soggy terrain.
Every logistical failure becomes a metaphor: each collapsing tent points to the wider chasm between idealism and ground. The storm sequence in the early kibbutz chapters — especially “Lying in the Mud and Barking at the Moon,” where the settlement nearly washes away — dramatizes that elemental struggle. You feel the land itself resisting its would-be redeemers.
By the time the narrative moves into Part II, the Arab perspective emerges not as backdrop, but as voice. Mustafa, once a peripheral figure, becomes a frustrated agitator whose sermons — half economic, half prophetic — speak of debt, dignity and land. His words register with painful clarity, even if the pioneers cannot or will not hear them.
The 1929 riots arrive with terrible inevitability. In one of the most wrenching scenes, Moshe Milner, a Jewish pioneer from Poland, is beaten for trying to raise funds for both Jewish and Arab victims. Solidarity itself is punished. In moments like this, Ayalti insists that the reader confront the impossibility of innocence.
Part III takes the novel toward collapse. Ideological certainties falter, comrades turn on one another, and even the land that promised redemption becomes charged with betrayal.
Comrade Gamzu, part zealot and part tragic figure, embodies this unraveling. At one point, he sits in his office writing an article for the Hebrew socialist newspaper — a small moment that crystallizes the novel’s insight: Labor is fought not only in fields and factories, but in words. The stormy conclusion leaves characters battered and arrested, and gives readers the sense that history itself has not yet chosen its verdict.
Ayalti’s place in Yiddish literature is unusual. While contemporaries often looked back at the shtetl or outward to immigrant life, he brought Yiddish to the frontier of Palestine. The result is a language of tension, where sacred vocabulary intermingles with slogans of socialist struggle.
It’s a reminder that Yiddish was not only a vehicle for memory but also for imagining futures — even ones later suppressed. (After moving to the United States, Ayalti set the novel aside for years, only completing Boom and Chains after returning to Israel.) In its ambition, Boom and Chains recalls the scope of the Soviet-Yiddish writer Dovid Bergelson and the ideological searching of I. L. Peretz, but it’s more direct, more politically uncompromising.
The translation is mostly smooth, though a few idioms fall flatter than the Yiddish likely sounded. For instance, a phrase like “to break one’s back for the land” feels more awkward in English than the fierce irony it probably carried in the original. Still, the glossary is a gift: Terms like Shomrim (guards, or members of the Labor Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair) and shekhine — the Yiddish form of Shekhinah, the Divine Presence) — are defined in ways that illuminate not just vocabulary, but the ideals behind it. You can feel, even without direct citation, how carefully Mahalel has rebuilt the novel’s world for English readers.
One recurring weakness is that some characters lapse into long ideological speeches. Ayalti, at times, can’t resist the pamphleteer’s impulse. Yet even these stretches reveal the emotional urgency of an age when politics was lived from the trenches when the modern State of Israel was still years from being founded. The heaviness that results is, paradoxically, part of the book’s honesty.
What makes Boom and Chains remarkable is how current it still feels. The struggle over land and labor, the ethical crisis of building renewal at another’s expense, the oscillation between hope and despair — all of it reads less like distant history than like a mirror. The book refuses the easy consolation that redemption can be clean. Instead it presses its readers: No soil is free of debt, no vision immune to fracture.
For Jewish readers today, this translation is a gift. It restores a lost voice of Yiddish modernism and places before us a stark question: Can a dream of justice survive when its ground is contested from the start? Boom and Chains doesn’t settle the question, but it forces us to live with it. And perhaps that is the deepest service a novel can offer.
The post A glimpse of the Jewish left in 1920s Palestine appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Belgium Reverses Decision to Cut Federal Security in Antwerp’s Jewish District Amid Community Outcry
Police officers on patrol in the Belgian city of Antwerp. Photo: Reuters / Nicolas Maeterlink
After facing strong opposition from public officials and the local Jewish community over plans to withdraw federal security in Antwerp’s Jewish district, the Belgian government announced it will maintain current security measures, keeping federal police deployed for the time being.
Belgian Interior Minister Bernard Quintin announced on Thursday that federal officers will remain deployed in the district, reversing an earlier government plan to cut the police presence there by roughly half. The reversal followed Quintin’s meeting with representatives of Antwerp’s Jewish community
Avec des représentants de la communauté juive d’#Anvers.
Leur sécurité est une priorité absolue: les dispositifs actuellement en place sont maintenus.
Je souhaite les renforcer par la présence de #militaires et espère que cette mesure pourra aboutir dans les heures à venir. pic.twitter.com/ODKh8sjMZ6
— Bernard Quintin (@BernardQuintin_) December 18, 2025
This latest decision comes just days after a deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach that left 15 dead and at least 40 injured, amid ongoing concerns about threats to Jewish communities worldwide.
On Monday, the Antwerp branch of the far-right political party Vlaams Belang had called for increased protection for Jewish schools and institutions during a city council meeting, Belgian media reported.
The government had originally rejected calls to bolster security, planning instead to withdraw the federal deployment, a move that sparked outrage from city leaders and renewed concern within the Jewish community amid ongoing threats.
Addressing these concerns, Quintin stressed that protecting Jewish sites is a top priority for the government, but emphasized that the federal police presence in Antwerp is not intended as a permanent solution, with local police responsible for maintaining security on the ground.
Antwerp Mayor Els van Doesburg had condemned the government’s earlier decision as “incomprehensible,” warning that the city cannot risk a security gap, especially in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack on Sunday.
“There must be no vacuum in the safety of Antwerp’s Jewish quarter,” Doesburg told Belgian media. “This is something we have to do together. It goes beyond the Antwerp police.”
Since the deadly attack at Brussels’ Jewish Museum in 2014, security measures have been strengthened, with Belgian intelligence consistently warning of elevated threats to Jewish sites.
In response, Antwerp has long maintained a mixed model in which local and federal police share responsibility for their protection.
The federal government has now proposed an alternative plan to deploy military personnel at Jewish community sites in Antwerp to support local police and increase capacity, though a government-wide consensus has yet to be reached.
Jewish community leaders had previously sharply criticized proposals to reduce security, dismissing Quintin’s explanation and denouncing it as a “political decision.”
Ralph Pais, deputy chair of the Jewish Information and Documentation Center (JID), a Belgian nonprofit that combats antisemitism, noted that the planned withdrawal, both in its timing and execution, had heightened concern within the community.
Despite the community’s expectation that authorities would address the issue, Pais had warned that inadequate security could lead to serious problems.
Dus geen 48 uur na de verschrikkelijke aanslag op joden in Australië zet nota bene onze minister van Binnenlandse Zaken @BernardQuintin_ de federale politiebeveiliging in @Stad_Antwerpen stop!
Burgemeester @elsvandoesburg vindt het uiteraard…
— JID (@s_antisemitisme) December 16, 2025
Van Doesburg had called for federal officers to remain in place until a suitable replacement could be established, whether through increased local police staffing or the deployment of military personnel — a request now addressed by the government’s decision to maintain current measures.
The European Jewish Association (EJA) said in a statement that it “welcomed” the move to maintain current federal police levels in Antwerp, noting that the initial plan “caused deep concern within the Jewish community and beyond.”
“This decision follows direct engagement with elected officials and Jewish representatives and sends an important message: the safety of Jewish life is a core responsibility of the state and cannot be subject to uncertainty or gradual erosion,” the EJA said. “The EJA wishes to express its sincere appreciation to [Quintin] for listening carefully to these concerns and for acting decisively to prevent any security vacuum. We also commend MP Michael Freilich, who raised the issue forcefully in Parliament.”
Uncategorized
NFL star apologizes for antisemitic hand gesture on controversial livestream
An NFL star has apologized for an antisemitic gesture he mimicked on a livestream earlier this week.
Puka Nacua, a third-year wide receiver who plays for the Los Angeles Rams, made the gesture after he was encouraged to on Tuesday by controversial livestreamer Adin Ross. Ross, who is Jewish, suggested Nacua incorporate the gesture into his touchdown celebration.
On Thursday, after the gesture was widely condemned online and drew responses from the NFL and the Rams, Nacua released a statement.
“When I appeared the other day on a social media livestream, it was suggested to me to perform a specific movement as part of my next touchdown celebration,” reads the statement, which featured the branding of Stand Up To Jewish Hate, an organization founded by Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. “At the time, I had no idea this act was antisemitic in nature and perpetuated harmful stereotypes against Jewish people.
“I deeply apologize to anyone who was offended by my actions as I do not stand for any form of racism, bigotry or hate of another group of people.”
The gesture — lowering the head into the shoulders while rubbing a hand over a fist — is sometimes known as the “Covetous Jew.”
Neither the Rams nor the NFL said if Nacua would face consequences for the incident in separate statements Thursday.
“The NFL strongly condemns all forms of discrimination and derogatory behavior directed towards any group or individual,” the league said in a statement Thursday. “The continuing rise of antisemitism must be addressed across the world, and the NFL will continue to stand with our partners in this fight. Hatred has no place in our sport or society.”
The Rams wrote, “There is no place in this world for Antisemitism as well as other forms of prejudice or hostility towards the Jewish people and people of any religion, ethnicity, or race.”
Nacua, who finished second in 2023 voting for NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year, received backlash over several statements he made during the livestream. He accused referees of bias and making calls for clout, saying “These guys are lawyers. They want to be on TV, too.” He also claimed that “concussions are all in your head, you just can’t think about it.”
Controversy is more familiar territory for Ross, who was banned from the streaming platform Twitch for more than two years due to his failure to moderate the torrent of racist and antisemitic comments in his stream’s live chat. He has hosted avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes several times on his stream; according to SBNation’s James Dator, “Ross has a reputation for allowing antisemitism on his show, often done under the guise of ‘joking.’”
The post NFL star apologizes for antisemitic hand gesture on controversial livestream appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Senate Passes Intel Bill With Key Measures Targeting Iran
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
The US Senate has passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, annual legislation that authorizes funding and sets policy for the intelligence community, with key measures targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities and other threats to American national security.
The bill, which received bipartisan support, includes measures such as “prohibiting the intelligence community from contracting with Chinese military companies, improving the security of CIA installations, identifying the threat to America’s food security posed by communist China, and directing necessary resources towards defending our nation from threats posed by Iran,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement on Wednesday.
The legislation is part of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets defense policy and authorizes funding levels. Lawmakers in the Senate passed the NDAA on Wednesday after their counterparts in the House did so last week.
“I’m glad this bill passed both houses of Congress as part of the NDAA and I look forward to it being signed into law by the president,” Cotton said.
Regarding intelligence, the bill includes measures aimed at suppressing Tehran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. The legislation expands congressional oversight of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and any efforts toward weapons development.
The bill also formally enshrines limits on the movement of Iranian diplomats on American soil, aligning them with existing limits already applied to diplomats from China, Russia, and North Korea. It also allocates additional resources to bolster US defenses against a range of Iranian threats, including proxy terrorist groups and potential assassination schemes against American citizens. The legislation furhter requires intelligence agencies with knowledge of Iranian lethal threats to report all information to the FBI and to the intended target.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, touted the bill’s bolstering of resources to intelligence agencies.
“I thank my colleagues and am glad to see this bill pass once again on a strong bipartisan basis. It provides the intelligence community the resources it needs to do its mission while ensuring that we maintain rigorous oversight of the [intelligence committee’s] activities,” Warner said in a statement.
Since returning to the White House in January, the Trump administration has ramped up US sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, human rights abuses, and support for terrorist groups across the Middle East and around the world. During Trump’s first term, the US withdrew from a 2015 deal with Iran that placed temporary restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.
In response, Iran has gone to extensive lengths to obscure its nuclear activity and evade accountability from the international community, according to international nuclear watchdogs. Nonetheless, Iran has continued to claim that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons.
The UK, France, and Germany said earlier this year there was no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, including the enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade levels, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
In September, US Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced the Strengthening Entry Visa Enforcement and Restrictions (SEVER) Act, which would prohibit members of Iran’s government, particularly those sanctioned for supporting the regime, from receiving US visas. The US has also placed severe sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.
In June, the US bombed three key Iranian nuclear sites during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. The US had previously tried to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Tehran, to no avail.