Uncategorized
When Jews really did wage a ‘war on Christmas’
(JTA) — On a frigid winter’s day in 1906, tens of thousands of Jewish parents in New York’s Lower East Side and Brooklyn kept their children home from school.
It wasn’t a snow day, but a protest: Activists and the Yiddish press had called for a boycott of the Christmas assemblies and pageants that they knew Jewish children would be obliged to attend on the day before the holiday.
“Jews Object to Christmas in the Schools,” blared the New York Times. The Brooklyn Eagle warned that “agitators” sought to rob Christian children of their traditions. The boycott was, depending on the source, a valiant cry for religious freedom, or the first shot in the 100-year-plus “war on Christmas.”
The episode is the subject of historian Scott D. Seligman’s new book, “The Great Christmas Boycott of 1906,” which reconstructs how a seemingly local dispute in one Brooklyn school exploded into a test case for religious freedom and civic belonging.
More than a century later, Seligman suggests, the issues it raised — over religion in public schools and the boundaries of church and state — remain strikingly familiar.
“As soon as I stumbled on the story, I knew there’d be a book,” said Seligman, who grew up in Newark, New Jersey, in the 1960s, when schoolchildren were still made to recite the Lord’s Prayer. “I was that kid in public school who always wondered why we were praying like Christians, and even why Christmas was a legal holiday.”
The book is the third installment in what’s become a trilogy about Jews engaged in mass action during the first part of the 20th century. “The Great Kosher Meat War of 1902” (2020) recalled a successful consumer uprising led by Lower East Side Jewish women fed up with the high cost of beef. In “The Chief Rabbi’s Funeral” (2024), Seligman explored how a vicious anti-Jewish riot on the Lower East Side led the city’s fractious Jewish community to organize as never before.
In practical terms, the Christmas boycott accomplished little, and even led to an antisemitic backlash. But it set a precedent for Jewish civic activism — and for a broader national debate about religion in public education that would stretch into the 21st century.
The spark came a year earlier, in December 1905, at Public School 174 in Brownsville. The Brooklyn neighborhood was a dense warren of immigrant Jews, many newly arrived from Eastern Europe, who eagerly sent their children to the public schools that were being filled nearly as fast as they could be built or renovated.
“The Catholics gave up on the public schools as irredeemably Protestant. The Jews loved public schools — they were a ticket to acculturation and advancement in a way they’d never had in the old country,” said Seligman. “All they wanted was to get the religious influence out.”
In a school assembly the day before Christmas, F. F. Harding, the school’s Presbyterian principal, read aloud from a text called “Gems of Wisdom from Bible Literature and Proverbs” and then addressed his 500 pupils, nearly all Jews.
“Now, boys and girls,” he said, “at this time of year I want you all to have the feeling of Christ in you. … Be like Christ.”
That message did not sit well with Augusta (“Gussie”) Herbert, a 14-year-old seventh grader. The daughter of a Jewish lawyer, Herbert stood up in front of the assembled students and asked why the Christian religion was being taught in a public school.
Her boldness shocked classmates and administrators alike. But she wasn’t alone. Dozens of Jewish children went home and told their parents that Christmas hymns and Bible readings had been part of their school day. Within days, Brownsville’s Jewish community was in an uproar.
Herbert’s father, Edward Herbert, brought the matter to Albert Lucas, a 47-year-old English-born activist who served as secretary of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
Lucas, born Abraham Abrahamson in Liverpool, was already a veteran of Jewish communal battles. He had led campaigns against Christian “settlement houses” that sought to convert Jewish children with free meals and holiday gifts. To him, the creeping Christianization of public schools was a subtler but equally serious threat.
“Lucas believed the schools were the front line in preserving Jewish identity in America,” Seligman said. “He saw it as his duty to protect children from being made to feel like second-class citizens.”
Lucas wrote to the city’s superintendent of schools, William Henry Maxwell, who had already issued a circular in 1903 reminding principals that “hymns containing reference to the tenets of any religious sect are out of place in unsectarian schools.” But enforcement was lax, and many teachers — Jewish and Christian alike — ignored the rule.
When word of Harding’s assembly reached Lucas, he pounced. Within two days, a petition circulated in Brownsville accusing the principal of “systematically Christianizing” Jewish children. The Hebrew Standard and Jewish Comment denounced the “proselytizing” in public schools, while the Brooklyn Eagle, the borough’s popular daily, defended the principal as merely promoting “good morals.”
In an unprecedented move, the Board of Education held a public hearing to weigh charges that a school principal had promoted religion. It drew a raucous crowd of 1,500.
The hearing revealed sharp divisions even within the Jewish community. Some defended Harding as a well-meaning educator; others accused him of deliberately blurring the line between civic virtue and Christian faith. In the end, the board gave Harding a slap on the wrist, in what Seligman calls “an early Easter gift.”
For Lucas and the Orthodox Union, the Harding verdict only confirmed that quiet lobbying wasn’t enough. They began to organize Jewish parents directly.
Their campaign reflected the broader social tensions of the time. Progressive reformers such as Superintendent Maxwell believed that public schools were engines of “Americanization,” meant to instill not only English and arithmetic but also civic and moral values. For many teachers, “being a good American” was synonymous with “being a good Christian.”
At the same time, America’s Jews were divided along class and ethnic lines. Uptown, German-born Jews — who had arrived decades earlier — feared that the noisy protests of their Yiddish-speaking coreligionists would jeopardize their own fragile acceptance. Downtown, newer immigrants saw those elites as assimilationist and out of touch.
By December 1906, with no change in policy, the Orthodox Union and the Yiddish press decided to act. Two newspapers — the Morgen Zhurnal and the Yidishes Tageblatt — called on Jewish parents to keep their children home on Dec. 24, when schools would hold Christmas exercises.
By most accounts, the response was overwhelming. In the Lower East Side and Brownsville, entire classrooms emptied out. Contemporary estimates suggested that between one third and twothirds of Jewish students were absent from heavily Jewish districts — perhaps 20,000 to 25,000 children citywide.
Anti-Jewish letters to the editor poured in, accusing the protesters of trying to “Judaize” the schools and “destroy” America’s Christian heritage. Protestant ministers accused Jews of ingratitude. Editorials described them as “latecomers, tolerated guests in a Christian country.”
Not all Jews supported the boycott. Abraham Stern, a German-Jewish member of the Board of Education, called the protesters “agitators” and said their actions lacked “the support of the more intelligent Jews of the city.”
Julia Richman, the city’s first female district superintendent — herself a Jewish reformer — said Christmas was both “religious and national” and should not be barred from schools “so long as it is not sectarian.”
Even some Reform rabbis dissented, including Judah L. Magnes of Temple Emanu-El, who favored cultural coexistence over confrontation.
But among the Yiddish-speaking press, the boycott was a point of pride. “Never before,” wrote one editor, “have Jewish workers stood up so boldly for their rights as Americans.”
Lucas and the boycotters were able to point to the New York State Constitution, which explicitly prohibited the use of public funds for schools teaching “the tenets of any religious sect” — a legacy of the long conflict between a Protestant establishment and Catholics.
But if law was on the side of the Jews, Seligman said, “the politics was not.” The Board of Education, caught between outraged Christians and emboldened Jews, eventually let the matter drop.
“At the end of the day, if you’re pushing for minority rights, you’re not going to get a lot of help from elected officials. Your best bet is always going to be the courts,” said Seligman.
By 1907, with no appetite for another boycott, the Orthodox Union’s activism around the issue waned. Hymns with religious themes were discouraged but not banned. Trees and wreaths returned to classrooms.
“The hot potato,” Seligman said, “remained in the laps of the school principals.”
It would take until the 1960s, with the Supreme Court’s Engel v. Vitale decision, for school-sponsored prayer to be declared unconstitutional. Even then, Seligman notes, “Christmas programs persisted, largely unchallenged.”
Seligman ends his book by drawing a line from 1906 to today. America’s Jewish population, he notes, is more assimilated and less religious than it was in Lucas’s day. But even as the number of self-identified Christians has been shrinking, Christian nationalists are louder and more politically powerful. And the Supreme Court, increasingly sympathetic to religious expression, has eroded some of the wall between church and state that figures like Lucas fought to preserve.
Jews, writes Selgiman, “are ostensibly in more or less the same position in which the New York Board of Education left them in 1907: forced to accept celebrations of a holiday in which they do not believe in the public schools attended by their children, paid for in part by their tax dollars.”
For Seligman, the lesson of 1906 is less about Christmas than about vigilance. The false accusation of a “Jewish war on Christmas,” he writes, “is as inevitable today as it was in 1906 — if not more so.”
And Gussie Herbert’s defiant question — “Why are you teaching the Christian religion in a public school?” — still echoes, more than a century later, whenever Americans debate where faith ends and the public square begins.
The post When Jews really did wage a ‘war on Christmas’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A new scheme dishonoring victims of Oct. 7 — hatched by Israel’s own government
The Israeli government has finally launched an investigation into the failures that led to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023 — but not the independent state commission of inquiry that Israeli law, democratic norms, and public sentiment demand.
Instead, it is pursuing an internal investigation — a scheme central to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to escape political consequences for the catastrophe, and an evolution of his broader project to weaken Israel’s checks and balances.
To understand how we got here, we must recall the argument the government now uses against a state commission: that the public supposedly “does not trust” any effort involving the Supreme Court. This narrative is new, and also false. Until only a few years ago, polling consistently showed that the Supreme Court was one of the most trusted institutions in Israel.
But as soon as criminal indictments for corruption were filed against him in 2019, Netanyahu launched a sustained campaign portraying the court as a bastion of left-wing activism, suspect in its motives at every turn. His claims on this front have, from the start, been false. But a falsehood repeated often enough can shift public sentiment. That appears to be part of the plan.
When Netanyahu addressed the Knesset last week, he claimed that the “vast majority” of the Israeli public “does not believe” in establishing a state commission. This is a transparent lie. According to the Israel Democracy Institute, 74% of Israelis — including 75.5% of Jews and 68% of Arabs — support establishing a fully independent state commission. Among leftists and centrists, support is above 85%.
Families of Oct. 7 victims stood and turned their backs on him. But while the lies may sound obvious, they have had a measurable effect, particularly on the right. This intentional erosion of trust aims to weaken oversight, expand executive power, and delegitimize any institution capable of restraining the government.
Israel has an accepted mechanism for drawing lessons from national disasters, established by the State Commissions of Inquiry Law of 1968. Under that act, commissions are chaired by sitting or retired Supreme Court justices endowed with sweeping quasi-judicial powers and full independence from government control.
The Agranat Commission after the Yom Kippur War and the Bejski Commission after the early-1980s banking crisis are remembered as credible precisely because they were insulated from political manipulation. Their conclusions reshaped national understanding and restored institutional trust, although the Agranat Commission is criticized for largely clearing Golda Meir’s government of blame.
A Sunday decision by the government to instead establish its own probe will, by contrast, allows ministers to determine the mandate, membership, and powers of a “government commission.” In practice, that means those under scrutiny will choose their own investigators, and can limit the scope of the enterprise.
The need for a true reckoning — not this parody of corruption run amok — could not be more urgent. The Oct. 7 attack revealed systemic collapse across Israel’s entire security and political architecture.
Internal reviews since have made clear that longstanding assumptions about Hamas — particularly the belief that the group was deterred and more interested in governance than conflict — were catastrophically misguided. The military left the Gaza border with minimal protection, with much personnel diverted to the West Bank to try to contain provocations against the Palestinians by militant settlers backed by the government. The Defense Minister, Chief of Staff, head of Military Intelligence, head of the Shin Bet, and other senior officials from that period have all resigned or been removed.
These failures were not solely operational; they were strategic, doctrinal, and political. For years, Netanyahu’s Gaza policy — allowing Qatari cash into the Strip, sidelining the Palestinian Authority, insisting that Hamas could be “managed” and finding a benefit in having the Palestinians be politically divided — shaped Israel’s thinking.
Netanyahu, however, has refused to even hint at accepting any responsibility. During the Gaza war, he argued that any inquiry must await its conclusion. Critics howled that such a claim incentivized his prolonging of the war — but thus did Netanyahu buy two more years of time.
Now, with the war seemingly over, comes this latest machination.
Critics across Israeli society have already labeled the government’s decision a whitewash and a cover-up. The Movement for Quality Government decried “a transparent attempt to evade a real and independent investigation.” The October Council — representing bereaved families, survivors, and relatives of hostages — condemned the move as an attempt by those in power to “absolve themselves of punishment.”
The refusal to establish a state commission is not an isolated decision. It sits alongside ongoing efforts to dilute the Attorney General’s authority, undermine independent media, and reshape public understanding of Israel’s core institutions. Internationally, Netanyahu benefits from an American political climate less committed to defending liberal democratic norms. President Trump’s letter to his counterpart Isaac Herzog last week, urging him to pardon Netanyahu and end his bribery trial, underscored this new reality.
In this reality, the election coming up within a year is emerging as a referendum on the fundamental, existential question of whether Israel wants to remain a true democracy, or join the ranks or elected dictatorships, ranging from Viktor Orban’s Hungary all the way to the worst-case scenario of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
And if Israel votes to save itself from Netanyahu and his cabal, expect the new government to decommission the whitewash — and appoint a state inquiry commission.
The post A new scheme dishonoring victims of Oct. 7 — hatched by Israel’s own government appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Texas Cemetery Unveils First North American Permanent Memorial Dedicated to Oct. 7 Hamas Attack
Hundreds attended the unveiling ceremony of the first monument in North America commemorating the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack at the Shalom Baruch cemetery in Humble, Texas. Photo: Shalom Baruch Cemetery
A Jewish cemetery in Texas recently unveiled the first permanent memorial in North America commemorating the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The 12-foot tall Star of David sculpture at Shalom Baruch – located in the Houston-area city of Humble – honors the victims, survivors, and hostages of the Oct. 7 massacre. It was conceptualized and designed by an art committee that included Anat Ronen, Kirsten Coco, and Jonathan Dror.
“The Star of David emerging from the ground stands as a symbol of resilience, identity, and collective memory,” said Coco. “It honors those we lost, affirms the strength of Israel and reflects a commitment to rise above hate, together.”
A companion ribbon-shaped sculpture nearby, created by Israeli artist Yaron Bob, was made out of shrapnel recovered from missiles that were fired at Israel from Iran and intercepted by the Jewish state’s Iron Dome system.
The sculpture symbolizes transformation and hope, according to a description on the cemetery’s website. Bob is well known for creating a similar piece that US President Donald Trump gifted to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this summer and a menorah for President Barack Obama in 2014.
Yaron Bob’s sculpture made from shrapnel. Photo: Chuck Thompson
Shalom Baruch was founded in 2023 by Israeli-American Varda Fields in honor of her father. Guests who attended the memorial’s unveiling ceremony were encouraged to leave notes in the cemetery’s Western Wall replica and promised that their notes would be delivered to the real wall in Jerusalem when Fields travels to Israel next. Memorial stones, made by adult artists living with intellectual and developmental disabilities through Alexander Jewish Family Services’ Celebration Company program, were given to attendees to place at the memorial’s base, in line with the Jewish tradition of placing stones on the grave of a loved one.
The Oct. 7 memorial sculpture is available for viewing to the general public during the cemetery’s regular hours, Monday through Friday. It was unveiled earlier in November during an event attended by several local, state, and national elected officials, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and more than 200 community members, civic leaders, and faith representatives.
“Jewish Houstonians and our many allies showed up for us today,” said Fields. “I can only hope that they continue to speak up against antisemitism, support the Jewish people, and even encourage others around the country and the world to build their own memorials so that we never forget what happened on Oct. 7 and every day thereafter.”
“This monument … serves as a powerful symbol of resilience, identity, and the unbreakable spirit of the Jewish people,” US Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX), who attended the unveiling ceremony, said in a statement on social media. “It stands as a reminder that even in the face of unimaginable hate and terror, we rise, together with strength, faith, and a commitment to ensure the world never forgets. May this memorial inspire unity, remembrance, and a continued stand against antisemitism, here at home and across the globe.”
Speakers at the unveiling ceremony, co-sponsored by the Holocaust Museum Houston, included former Hamas hostage Omer Shem Tov, who was abducted from the Nova music festival on Oct. 7, 2023, by Hamas-led terrorists and held captive in the Gaza Strip for 505 days. Shem Tov was released from captivity on Feb. 22 as part of a ceasefire deal. He spoke at the ceremony about the hostages and the soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces who were killed protecting Israel since the Oct. 7 attack. The Shalom Baruch cemetery honored him with its inaugural “The Lone Star of Israel Award,” which it will present annually.
Uncategorized
UK University Researcher Banned From Campus After Uttering Medieval Antisemitic Tropes at SJP Lecture
Illustrative” Parliament Square, in London, Britain, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
University College London (UCL) on Thursday condemned an on-campus incident in which its former researcher uttered “vile” antisemitic statements during an event organized by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a global anti-Israel network linked to jihadist groups.
As seen in footage shared by StandWithUs UK, the researcher, Samar Maqusi, delivered a pseudo-academic lecture at the UCL Student Union which argued that Napoleon Bonaparte recruited Jewish financiers to join him in a conspiracy to end the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of the Holy Land, saying the French emperor sought the fictional partnership because “Jews pretty much controlled the financialization [sic] structure.”
Additionally, she charged that Jews harvest the blood of gentiles to use it as the key ingredient of “special pancakes,” a classic antisemitic trope pulled from the medieval age and used to justify pogroms and many other forms of legalized anti-Jewish discrimination and persecution.
“I am utterly appalled by these heinous antisemitic comments. Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our university, and I want to express my unequivocal apology to all Jewish students, staff, alumni, and the wider community that these words were uttered at UCL,” university president and provost Michael Spence said in a statement. “The individual responsible is a former fixed-term researcher at UCL, but not a current member of UCL staff. We have reported this incident to the police and have banned her from campus.”
He added, “We have launched a full investigation into how this happened and have banned the student group which hosted it from holding any further events on campus pending the outcome of this.”
UCL’s Student Union also condemned the incident while announcing disciplinary sanctions for SJP which halts its operating on campus indefinitely.
“The antisemitic tropes used throughout the lecture are reprehensible, and we condemn this language in the strongest possible terms. Every person in our community has a duty to call out and challenge hate speech on our campus,” it said. “We have suspended the two organizing societies, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jews for Palestinian Justice, with immediate effect. A full investigation through our disciplinary procedures will now take place.”
UCL is not the only university in the United Kingdom to see recent antisemitic acts.
At City St. George’s, University of London Israeli professor Michael Ben-Gad has been unrelentingly pursued by a pro-Hamas organization which calls itself City Action for Palestine. It has subjected him to several forms of persecution, including social media agitprop, spontaneous, unlawful assembly at his place of work, and even a petition of their own.
City Action for Palestine is one of London’s most notorious anti-Zionist groups, convulsing higher education campuses across the city with pro-Hamas demonstrations which demonize pro-Israel Jews, attack policies enacted to combat antisemitism, and amplify the propaganda of jihadist terror organizations. Ben-Gad is not its only victim, as the group has targeted Members of Parliament, the Union of Jewish Students, and City University London president Anthony Finkelstein, who is Jewish and the child of a Holocaust survivor.
In 2023, just months before Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel, the National Union of Students (NUS), a body representing thousands of university students in the UK, apologized for discriminating against Jewish students.
The expression of contrition followed years of incidents to which Jewish groups pointed as evidence that antisemitism was prevalent throughout its organizing structure. Jewish students had reported incitement of violence against Israeli civilians, the spreading of conspiracy theories about Mossad’s rumored role in the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), and opposition to a motion proposing observance of Holocaust Memorial Day.
In November 2022, NUS removed president Shaima Dallali after finding her guilty of antisemitism and other misconduct. Dallali’s tenure at NUS brimmed with controversies, including the discovery of tweets in which she called Hamas critics “Dirty Zionists” and quoted the battle cry, “Khaybar, Khaybar o Jews, the army of Muhammad will return,” a reference to the Battle of Khaybar in 628 that resulted in a massacre of Jews.
UK Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson recently called on higher education officials to “tackle this poison of antisemitism,” calling the trend “unacceptable.”
“There can be no place for harassment and intimidation,” she said while appearing on a program by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which has itself been scrutinized for deluging the airwaves with false stories fed by the Hamas terrorist organization. “Universities can and must act on that.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.