Uncategorized
A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary
(JTA) — Israel’s new governing coalition has been called the “most right-wing” in the nation’s history. That’s heartening to supporters who want the country to get tough on crime and secure Jewish rights to live in the West Bank, and dismaying to critics who see a government bent on denying rights to Israel’s minorities and undermining any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the far-right politics of new government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have drawn much of the world’s attention, a series of proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system has also been raising hopes and alarms. On Wednesday, new Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced an overhaul that would limit the authority of the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court. It would put more politicians on the selection committee that picks judges, restrict the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and government decisions and enact an “override clause” enabling the Knesset to rewrite court decisions with a simple majority.
Levin and his supporters on the right justify these changes as a way to restore balance to a system that he says puts too much control in the hands of (lately) left-leaning judges: “We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard,” he asserted. “That is not democracy.”
Critics of the changes call them a power grab, one that will hand more leverage to the haredi Orthodox parties, remove checks on the settlement movement and limit civil society groups’ ability to litigate on behalf of Israeli minorities.
To help me make sense of the claims on both sides, I turned to Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, where he is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law and co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project, which gathers and analyzes the constitutions of all independent nation-states. He’s also a Jew who has transformed a former synagogue on the South Side of Chicago into a cutting-edge arts space, and says what’s happening with Israel’s new governing coalition “raises my complicated relationship with the country.”
We spoke on Friday. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You have written about law in Israel, which lacks a constitution but relies on a series of “basic laws” to define its fundamental institutions. You’ve written that the Israeli judiciary had become “extremely powerful” — maybe too powerful — in imbuing the basic laws with a constitutional character, but worry that the current reforms will politicize the court in ways that will undermine Israeli democracy.
Tom Ginsburg: The proposed reforms were a campaign promise of certain elements of this coalition who have had longstanding grievances against the Israeli judiciary. The Israeli judiciary over the last decades has indeed become extremely powerful and important in writing or rewriting a constitution for Israel, promoting human rights and serving as a check and balance in a unicameral parliamentary system where the legislature can do anything it wants as a formal matter. A lot of people have had problems with that at the level of theory and practice. So there have been some reforms, and the court has, in my view, cut back on its activism in recent decades and in some sense has been more responsive to the center of the country. But there’s longstanding grievances from the political right, and that’s the context of these proposals.
A lot of the concerns about the new government in Israel are coming from the American Jewish left. But in an American context, the American Jewish left also has a big problem with the United States Supreme Court, because they see it as being too activist on the right. So in some ways isn’t the new Israeli government looking to do what American Jewish liberals dream of doing in this country?
Isn’t that funny? But the context is really different. The basic point is that judicial independence is a really good thing. Judicial accountability is a really good thing. And if you study high courts around the world, as I do, you see that there’s kind of a calibration, a balancing of institutional factors which lead towards more independence or more accountability and sometimes things switch around over time.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Jan. 4, 2023. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)
You mean “accountability” in the sense that courts should be accountable to the public.
Right. The Israeli promoters of these plans are pointing to the United States, in particular, for the proposals for more political involvement in the appointment process. On the other hand, in the United States once you’re appointed politically, you’re serving for life. There’s literally no check on your power. And so maybe some people think we have too much independence. If these proposals go through in Israel, there will be a front-end politicization of the court [in terms of the selection commission], but also back-end checks on the court [with the override clause that would allow a simple majority to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court]. So in some sense, it moves the pendulum very far away from independence and very much towards accountability to the point of possible politicization.
And accountability in that case is too much of a good thing.
Again, you don’t want courts that can just make up rules. They should be responsive to society. On the other hand, you don’t want judges who are so responsive to society that there’s no protection for the basic rights of unpopular minorities.
What makes Israel either unique or different from some of the other countries you study, and certainly the United States? Part of it, I would guess, is the fact that it does not have a constitution. Is that a useful distinction?
They couldn’t agree on a single written constitution at the outset of the country, but they have built one through what you might call a “common law method”: norms and practices over time as well as the system of “basic laws,” which are passed by an absolute majority of the Knesset, where a majority of 61 votes can change any of those. But while they’re not formally entrenched, they have a kind of political status because of that term: basic law.
By the way, the Germans are in the same boat. The German constitution is called the Basic Law. And it was always meant to be a provisional constitution until they got together and reunified.
If you don’t have a written constitution, what’s the source of the legitimacy of judicial power? What is to prevent a Knesset from just passing literally any law, including ones that violate all kinds of rights, or installing a dictator? It has been political norms. And because Israel has relied on political norms, that means that this current conflict is going to have extremely high stakes for Israeli governance for many decades to come.
Can you give me a couple of examples? What are the high stakes in terms of democratic governance?
First of all, let me just say in principle that I don’t oppose reforms to make the judiciary more independent or accountable in any particular country. But then you obviously have to look at the local context. What’s a little worrying about this particular example is that several members of this coalition are themselves about to be subject to judicial proceedings.
Including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Right. And for example, they need to change the rules so that [Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri can sit in the cabinet despite his prior convictions. That indicates to me that maybe this isn’t a good-faith argument about the proper structure of the Israeli, uncodified constitution, but instead a mechanism of expediency.
Any one of these reforms might look okay, and you can find other countries that have done them. The combination, however, renders the judiciary extremely weak. Right now, it’s a multi-stakeholder commission that nominates and appoints judges in Israel, and the new coalition wants to propose that the commission be made up of a majority of politicians. We know that when you change the appointments mechanism to put more politicians on those committees, the more politicized they become.
Think about the United States process of appointing our Supreme Court judges: It’s highly politicized, and obviously the legitimacy of the court has taken a big hit in recent years. In Israel, you’d have politicized appointments under these reforms, but then you also have the ability of the Knesset to override any particular ruling that it wanted. Again, you can find countries which have that. It’s called the “new commonwealth model” of constitutionalism, in which courts don’t have the final say on constitutional matters, and the legislature can overrule them on particular rulings. But I think the combination is very dangerous because you could have a situation where the Knesset — which currently has a role in protecting human rights — can pick out and override specific cases, which really to me goes against the idea of the rule of law.
You mentioned other countries. Are there other countries where these kinds of changes were enacted and we saw how the experiment turned out?
The two most prominent recently are Hungary and Poland, which are not necessarily countries that you want to compare yourself to.
Certainly not if you are Israel.
Right. There’s so much irony here. When the new Polish government came in in 2015, they immediately manipulated the appointment system for the Constitutional Court and appointed their own majority, which then allowed them to pass legislation which probably would have been ruled unconstitutional. They basically set up a system where they were going to replace lower judges and so they were going to grow themselves into a majority of the court. And that’s led to controversy and rulings outside the mainstream that have led to protests, while the European Union is withholding funds and such from Poland because of this manipulation of the court.
In Hungary, Victor Orban was a really radical leader, and when he had a bare majority to change the constitution he wiped out all the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. I don’t think the Israeli government would do that. But still there is this kind of worrying sense that they’re able to manipulate interpretation of law for their own particular political interest.
Another thing I want to raise is the potential for a constitutional crisis now. Suppose they pass these laws and the Israeli Supreme Court says, “Well, wait a minute, that interferes with our common law rules that we are bound by, going back to the British Mandate.” It conflicts with the basic law and they invoke what legal scholars call the “doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” which is basically saying that an amendment goes against the core of our democratic system and violates, for example, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic society. Israel has never done this, but it is a kind of tool that one sees deployed around the world in these crises. And if that happened, then I think you would have a full constitutional crisis on your hands in Israel.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak speaks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony in the Supreme Court marking 50 years of law, Sept. 15, 1998. (Avi Ohayon)
What does a constitutional crisis look like?
Suppose you have sitting justices in Israel who say, “You know, this Knesset law violates the basic law and therefore it’s invalid.” And then, would the Knesset try to impeach those judges? Would they cut the budget of the judiciary? Would they back down?
When you compare Israel’s judicial system to other countries’ over the years, how does it stack up? Is it up there among the very strong systems or is it known for flaws that might have maybe hobbled its effectiveness?
It’s always been seen around the world as a very strong judiciary. Under the leadership of Aharon Barak [president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006] it became extremely activist. And this provoked backlash in Israeli politics. That led to a kind of recalibration of the court where it is still doing its traditional role of defending fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of the political process, but it’s not making up norms left and right, in the way that it used to. This is my perception. But it’s certainly seen as one of the leading courts around the world, its decisions are cited by others, and because of the quality of the judges and the complex issues that Israel faces it’s seen as a strong court and an effective court and to me a balanced court.
But, you know, I’m not in Israel, and ultimately, they’re going to figure out the question how balanced it is or where it’s going to go. I do worry that an unchecked majoritarian system, especially with a pure proportional representation model like Israel, has the potential for the capture of government by some minorities to wield power against other minorities. And that’s a problem for democracies — to some degree, that’s a problem we face in the United States.
How correctable are these reforms? I am thinking of someone who says, “These are democratically elected representatives who now want to change a system. If you want to change the system, elect your own majority.” Is the ship of state like this really hard to turn around once you go in a certain direction?
This is an area in which I think Israel and the United States have a lot of similarities. For several decades now, the judiciary has been a major issue for those on the political right. They thought the Warren Court was too left-leaning and they started the Federalist Society to create a whole cadre of people to staff the courts. They’ve done that and now the federal courts are certainly much more conservative than the country probably. But the left didn’t really have a theory of judicial power in the United States. And I think that’s kind of true in Israel: It’s a big issue for the political right, but the political left, besides just being not very cohesive at the moment, isn’t able to articulate what’s good about having an independent judiciary. It is correctable in theory, but that would require the rule of law to become a politically salient issue, which it generally isn’t in that many countries.
How do you relate to what is happening in Israel as a Jew, and not just a legal scholar?
That’s a great question, because it really raises my complicated relationship with the country. You know, I find it to be a very interesting democracy. I like going to Israel because it’s a society in which there’s a lot of argument, a lot of good court cases and a lot of good legal scholars. On one level, I connect with my colleagues and friends there who seem very demoralized about this current moment. And I honestly worry about whether this society will remain a Jewish and democratic one with the current coalition.
The rule of law is a part of democracy. You need the rule of law in order to have democracy function. And I know others would respond and say, “Oh, you’re just being hysterical.” And, “This isn’t Sweden, it’s the Middle East.” But the ethno-nationalist direction of the country bothers me as a Jew, and I hope that the court remains there to prevent it from deepening further.
—
The post A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Iran’s Leadership Draws Up Contingency Escape Plans Amid Widespread Anti-Government Protests: Reports
Protesters march in downtown Tehran, Iran, Dec. 29, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
As anti-government protests continue to rage and spread across Iran, the country’s leadership is reportedly preparing for a potential collapse of the regime, with senior officials said to be drawing up contingency escape plans and stockpiling resources.
On Thursday, British Conservative Member of Parliament Tom Tugendhat said intelligence reports indicate that Iranian senior officials are putting contingency measures in place, “which suggest that the regime itself is preparing for life after the fall.”
“We’re also seeing Russian cargo aircraft coming and landing in Tehran, presumably carrying weapons and ammunition, and we’re hearing reports of large amounts of gold leaving Iran,” the British lawmaker told Parliament.
Amid growing domestic unrest, the regime’s leadership has reportedly applied for French visas for their families in recent days, while also taking steps to secure assets abroad.
“In the past 24 hours, high-ranking dignitaries from the reformist clan — including the president of the Islamic Assembly — have been attempting to obtain French visas for their families via a Parisian lawyer,” Iranian-French journalist Emmanuel Razavi told the French news outlet Le Figaro.
Razavi also told the Nouvelle Revue Politique in a separate interview that the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, is one of the leaders seeking a visa. The journalist added that the nephew of former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani applied for a visa to France.
There have also been reports that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has a backup plan to flee the country if security forces fail to suppress the protests or begin to defect.
“The ‘plan B’ is for Khamenei and his very close circle of associates and family, including his son and nominated heir apparent, Mojtaba,” an intelligence source told the British newspaper The Times.
The Iranian leader would reportedly flee to Moscow, following the path of ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.
However, some experts have cast doubt on reports that Khamenei, who has not left Iran for decades, plans to flee, arguing the 86-year-old leader will likely die in the country.
As anti-regime protests continue to sweep Iran and security forces struggle to contain them, Iranian officials are increasingly blaming one another and foreign enemies, laying bare growing fractures within the regime.
All eyes on Iran. Widespread protests in Iran. Call for freedom
pic.twitter.com/9ONJUsb8U9
— Masud Gharahkhani (@MasudGh) January 8, 2026
The nationwide protests, which began with a shopkeepers’ strike in Tehran last week, initially reflected public anger over the soaring cost of living, a deepening economic crisis, and the rial — Iran’s currency — plummeting to record lows amid renewed economic sanctions, with annual inflation near 40 percent.
Increasingly, however, the protests have turned against the government itself, with demonstrators shouting slogans against the regime.
For nearly two weeks, widespread demonstrations have shaken the Islamist regime, with violent clashes between protesters and security forces drawing international attention and increasing pressure on the government to refrain from using violence against peaceful demonstrators.
Khamenei last week accused “enemies of the Islamic Republic” of stoking unrest and warned that “rioters should be put in their place.” Then on Friday, he described the demonstrators as a “bunch of vandals” who were trying to “please” US President Donald Trump, vowing authorities will “not back down.”
Iranian rights group HRANA said on Friday it had documented the deaths of at least 62 people, including 14 security personnel and 48 protesters, since protests began on Dec. 28.
As regime forces intensify their crackdown on protesters and opposition figures in an effort to maintain stability, the government has cut internet access and telephone lines — a move experts warned could signal an imminent violent escalation — though videos of the demonstrations continue to circulate online.
This week, US Trump reiterated his threat to strike Iran if security forces kill protesters, warning that any violence against demonstrators would carry “serious consequences” for the regime.
“I have let them know that if they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots … we’re going to hit them very hard,” Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt.
According to the Norway-based Iran Human Rights NGO (IHRNGO), dozens of protesters, including eight children, have been killed since the protests began, with more than 340 demonstrations reported across all 31 of Iran’s provinces.
According to media reports and social media videos from Iran, anti-riot forces — including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij militia, local police, and the army — have used violent tactics such as live fire, tear gas, and water cannons to suppress demonstrations.
In widely circulated social media videos, protesters can be heard chanting slogans such as “Death to the dictator” and “Khamenei will be toppled this year,” while also calling for Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to step down.
The ongoing demonstrations are the largest since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, which erupted nationwide after Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, died in a Tehran police station following her arrest for allegedly violating hijab rules, sparking calls for human rights and individual freedoms across Iran.
Uncategorized
Employees of Popular NYC Bakery Move to Unionize Over Company’s Support for Israel, ‘Zionist Projects’
A Breads Bakery location in New York City. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Staff members at the extremely popular New York City establishment Breads Bakery announced they are unionizing over working conditions, unfair wages, and the company’s support for Israel.
Over 30 percent of workers across the company’s locations in New York have signed authorization cards to join the newly formed Breaking Breads Union, which will be represented by United Auto Workers. They compared their hardships as staff members of the company to so-called “genocide” taking place in the Middle East and are demanding that the bakery sever all ties with Israel.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the workers said they refuse to participate “in Zionist projects” such as fundraisers that support what they claim is Israel’s “occupation of Palestine.”
“We demand a future with a redistribution of profits, safer working conditions, more respect, and an end to this company’s support of the genocide happening in Palestine,” they previously said in statement released on Jan. 2. “We cannot and will not ignore the implicit and explicit support this bakery has for Israel. We see our struggles for fair pay, respect, and safety as connected to struggles against genocide and forces of exploitation around the world. There are deep cultural changes that need to happen here, and we need to see accountability from upper management.”
Staff members supporting the union said they delivered the same statement as a speech in front of the bakery’s owner and Israeli founder Gadi Peleg as well as its CEO, fellow Israeli Yonatan Floman, inside the bakery’s Union Square flagship location and also outside of the establishment.
The New York City bakery produces artisan, handmade breads and pastries, but is most famous for its babka. It has five locations across Manhattan, has been featured on television, and has done collaborations with high-profile figures including chefs and cookbook authors Martha Stewart, Padma Lakeshmi, Katie Lee Biegel, and Molly Yeh, as well as Israeli chef Ben Siman-Tov. The bakery regularly sells pastries or breads inspired by the Jewish holidays, such as Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Hanukkah, and Purim. It is reportedly a spinoff of a Tel Aviv bakery, and its menu includes challah, bourekas, and other traditional Jewish foods.
Following the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Breads Bakery launched a project called “Strand With Us,” in which they sold special heart-shaped challahs on Fridays and sent all profits to support Magen David Adom emergency medical services in Israel. The bakery raised more than $20,000 as part of the project. The company also donated its signature black-and-white cookies to a bake sale fundraiser that raised $27,000 to help a Tel Aviv-based organization preparing meals for displaced families and hospital workers in Israel. The bakery additionally sold cookies featuring the Israeli flag, according to Breaking Breads, and annually participates in the Great Nosh, a Jewish food festival on Governor’s Island that is supported by some pro-Israel groups that donate to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
In November 2023, one location of Breads Bakery in Manhattan was vandalized after someone spray-painted with red graffiti the message “Free Gaza” on the store’s window.
In a statement on Wednesday, Breads Bakery said it is concerned about “divisive political issues” in its bakeries.
“Breads Bakery is built on love and genuine care for our team. We make babka, we don’t engage in politics. We celebrate peace and embrace people of all cultures and beliefs,” the company said. “We’ve always been a workplace where people of all backgrounds and viewpoints can come together around a shared purpose, the joy found at a bakery, and we find it troubling that divisive political issues are being introduced into our workplace.”
Uncategorized
Emma Goldman, superstar? The Jewish anarchist has a surprising role to play in American musical theater
Lately I’ve been thinking about Emma Goldman, the Russian-born Jewish anarchist who attracted droves of followers in her 30-plus years in the United States. I’ve not really been focused on her place in history writ large, more her surprisingly robust soap box in the world of musical theater. For all her import to the American left, on Broadway she’s mostly a bit part. And that bothers me.
Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty’s Ragtime, now in a lauded revival at Lincoln Center, devotes a song to her 1906 speech at Union Square. From there she interprets the subtext of a meeting between the WASPy, rich character “Younger Brother” and Black pianist Coalhouse Walker Jr. As a featured player, minus ensemble numbers, she’s in the mix for less than 10 minutes — she features more in E.L. Doctorow’s novel.
When I saw the Encores production at New York’s City Center last year, I remembered that Goldman has a cameo in Stephen Sondheim’s Assassins; in a brief encounter that would later haunt her, she hands a pamphlet to William McKinley’s future assassin Leon Czolgosz. Her role there, played by a member of the ensemble who doubles other parts, is even smaller.
While on vacation in Colorado over New Year’s (I skied; the chair lift conked me in the head), I got an email about an upcoming production of a chamber opera called E.G.: A Musical Portrait of Emma Goldman. I had to know more. Was she finally getting her due?
The piece, which began performances at Theater for the New City on Jan. 8, is by composer Leonard Lehrman and librettist Karen Ruoff Kramer. It’s actually not new at all, just the most recent production of a story they’ve been telling — or gospel they’ve been spreading — for over 40 years. To date they’ve presented the piece, together with educational slides, in five countries, at universities and synagogues, for groups like the Workers Circle and to mark important anniversaries, like the centennial of the Haymarket Riot that helped radicalize Goldman. They believe the work is more topical than ever.
“She’s talking about how war drains the economy from everything else, and militarism, to stay alive, will look for an enemy or even create one artificially,” said Lehrman, whose piece features him on piano and acting as Goldman’s lover, friend and partner Alexander Berkman. (Caryn Hartglass plays the title role.)
“It’s happening right now,” added Lehrman, “the creation of an enemy in order to distract from domestic failure.”
Lehrman and Kramer began work on the musical in 1984, first basing it on historian Howard Zinn’s play Emma. As the pair researched Goldman’s life, the story took a different tack. The pair met as expats in Germany, and, given that connection, gravitated toward her life in exile, which began in 1919 when the U.S. deported her as a radical “alien.” The action of the piece tells her life story through the various parts of a visa application she filled out from St. Tropez in 1933. (The section on the form for “name” deals with identity and her marriages for which she took other surnames; for “sex” she offers the Austin Powers “Yes, please” — though Lehrman and Kramer wrote it first — and goes on like that, even covering her 1916 arrest at the Forward building for giving a talk about birth control.)
“I need America,” she says in the opening moments. “And I need to know: Does America need me now?”
It makes a certain sense for Goldman to express her ideas through song. Les Miserables, if nothing else, has shown the anthemic potential of staging a revolution. (Its signature anthem shows up in real-world protests with some regularity.)
Goldman is credited with saying, “If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution,” a quotable that gets its own number in Lehrman’s musical. Speaking over Zoom, Lehrman wore a shirt with those words and a portrait of Goldman.
Lehrman noted that in addition to his opera, there are two other ones about Goldman they know of — one by Elaine Fine, made in collaboration with Zinn, and another by Canadian composer Gary Kulesha.
Given her radical bona fides and thoughts about capitalism, some may wonder if Goldman might clash with the format of musical drama. We don’t have too much to go on for musicals, as the form as we now know it arguably wasn’t established until around 13 years before her death, with Showboat (it debuted in 1927, after her deportation; one suspects she would approve of how it addressed racial prejudice).
In her time, opera for the bourgeois and Vaudeville for the masses were popular musical entertainment. While Goldman turned down offers to appear on Vaudeville stages, Samantha M. Cooper, professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Kansas, observed in a 2023 lecture, Goldman was a fan — if also a critic — of opera, writing about it with some frequency in her magazine Mother Earth, and even in a lecture notes in admiration of Richard Wagner.
Cooper argues that perhaps Goldman’s most pivotal reference to opera comes in her memoir, Living My Life. In it Goldman recounts how, after watching a performance of Carmen at the Met, her mentor Johann Most asked her to recall her first experience at the opera in Königsberg.
She vividly recounted seeing Il trovatore as a school girl, where she “first realized the ecstasy music could create in me.” Hearing her impassioned reflection, Most told Goldman she had talent and must “begin soon to recite and speak in public.”
“He grinned and emptied his glass to my ‘first public speech,’” Goldman recalled.
Could it be that we have opera, then, to thank for Emma Goldman’s oratory, and so, her future presence in musicals?
E.G. makes clear that the firebrand activist is not so uni-dimensional as Ragtime and Assassins make her seem. Her life was limned with contradictions. She enjoyed the finer things — and also railed against fatcat industrialists up to the point of attempted murder.
Drawing from letters historian Candace Falk found in the back of a record store — the owner showed them to her when she learned her dog was named “Red Emma Goldman” — Lehrman and Kramer’s piece reveals Goldman as a sexual creature with a biting wit. And it makes the case that while she was condemned to a life away from America for her so-called subversion, she was nonetheless a patriot.
“It’s important that people see that there was a courageous way of being very much American that was not the same thing as just buckling under when McCarthy comes and says, ‘You guys have to shut up now,’” said Kramer.
Though the portrait in E.G. makes for a more comprehensive profile than the one now at Lincoln Center, it also presents something larger in its invitation to consider her legacy.
“E.G. means ‘For example, take this example,’” said Kramer. “Not in the sense of cloning Emma in all respects, but certainly the insistence on understanding and the courage to push for things that are right, even if they’re not popular, and that others should do that too.”
In the canon of musical theater, there are many examples to choose from. I like the one who dances. Sign me up for a shirt.
The post Emma Goldman, superstar? The Jewish anarchist has a surprising role to play in American musical theater appeared first on The Forward.