Features
Canadian Associates of Ben Gurion University hold online gala event featuring Shira Haas of “Shtisel” and “Unorthodox” fame
By BERNIE BELLAN Shira Haas may be only 26 years old, but she has already become one of Israel’s best known actors, having starred as an Orthodox Jew in both “Shtisel” and “Unorthodox”. (In real life Shira is not Orthodox, by the way.)
On Wednesday, July 7th, Canadian Associates of Ben Gurion University presented a cross-Canada online event promoting brain research at Ben Gurion University, during which Senator Linda Frum, who was in Toronto, took a leaf from her late mother, Barbara Frum’s playbook, and interviewed Shira Haas, who was in Tel Aviv, in what turned out to be an enjoyable and quite interesting 40 minutes back and forth.
In introducing the event, CABGU National CEO Mark Mendelson said that the event had raised a total of $850,000 toward brain research at BGU.
Mendelson also noted that last year’s “Support our Students” campaign had also raised $1.4 million starting in the spring of 2020 – when Covid was taking an especially heavy toll in Israel. The funds raised were used to allow students at the university to remain in school rather than having to drop out due to financial constraints brought about by Covid.
“Canadian Associates of Ben Gurion University” is “the number one Israel based organization in Canada,” Mendelson said.
Proceeds from the gala event will “fund research into neuro-degenerative disease,” Mendelson explained, including Epilepsy, ALS, Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s, Dementia, and Stroke. Prior to Senator Frum’s interview of Haas, some 1500 audience members were given an overview of the advances various researchers at BGU have been making in the treatment of different disorders associated with the brain.
Five different researchers at BGU offered explanations of new developments in which they have been involved in each of those areas. In commenting on the challenges they face, BGU President Daniel Chamovitz quoted David Ben Gurion himself, who once said: “If an expert says it’s impossible, find another expert.”
Chamovitz, who was born in Pennsylvania and obtained his undergraduate degree from Columbia before transferring to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he obtained his Ph.D. in plant science, offered the audience some very personal reflections about the toll Covid had taken on both him and his wife.
Chamovitz noted that he had his own experience dealing with Covid, when both he and his wife, Shira, came down with Covid last September. (Chamovitz has been keeping a very interesting online journal tracking Covid at BGU, called “My Covid Year”.) He said that he’s still dealing with the effects of Covid many months later, noting that “Post Covid Syndrome” affects about 10-15% of individuals – mostly women, who have come down with Covid.
Later, however, during the portion of the evening in which Shira Haas was being interviewed, Chamovitz, who displayed a wry sense of humour whenever he appeared during the event, made a funny observation about his Hebrew-speaking ability.
It turns out that Haas’s next starring role will be as a young Golda Meir in a movie about Golda’s life, to be produced by none other than Barba Streisand, called “Lioness”. Haas was asked how she will master Golda’s American-accented Hebrew. (Golda Meir, although born in Russia, moved to Milwaukee as a young woman, which is where she learned to speak English.)
Haas said it was really just a matter of mastering an accent, to which Chamovitz added that he can readily identify with Golda Meir, whom Israelis often made fun of for her American English manner of speaking Hebrew.
In accepting the position of President of BGU, Chamovitz said, he was proud to become head of a university that has been at the forefront of so many advances within Israeli society, including its inclusion of many members of the Bedouin minority who live near Beer Sheva.
Ben Gurion University is now home to the first female Bedouin professor in Israel, he noted: Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder, who was also the first Bedouin woman to receive a Ph.D.
When it comes to innovation, Chamovitz observed, “All the nations in the Middle East are looking to us (in Israel) for answers. We’ve been living in the desert” – no university more so than BGU.
Turning to Senator Linda Frum’s question and answer session with Shira Haas, while Frum was seated in some sort of studio, Haas was in a room in her home, which looked quite unadorned – hardly what you would expect to see in the home of a major television star. Following are excerpts from the interview:
Frum: “What’s it like to be an Israeli celebrity?”
Haas: “It’s a feeling of being a family in Israel. Everyone knows everyone. When you walk in the streets and get compliments it’s like people feel they know you.”
Frum: “How did you know you were going to be an actor?”
Haas: “I was very shy. I never thought I’d be an actor. Thanks to Facebook I auditioned for a part just before I turned 16. One of my first auditions was for ‘Shtisel’ (in which she played the part of Ruchamie). It’s hard to believe that was already 10 years ago.”
Frum: “Did you think you’d have a career only in Hebrew or did you want to be an international actor?”
Haas: “When we were doing ‘Shtisel’ or ‘Unorthodox’ nobody ever thought it would get to Netflix – so I never thought I would become an international actor.”
Frum: “When you choose your projects, you don’t take the easy road. Of all the difficult things you’ve done, what was the hardest?”
Haas: “Your question reminded me that a few weeks ago someone stopped me on the street and complimented me. I gave him a big smile and he said: ‘Omigod, it’s so nice to see you smile!’” (in reference to Haas’s roles in “Shtisel” and “Unorthodox” where she faced unremittingly difficult choices and hardly ever smiled.)
“My most challenging role was in ‘Asia’ (pronounced A-seea – in which Haas plays a young girl struggling with a degenerative neurological disease. It hasn’t reached Winnipeg yet.) It was very personal for me.” (Haas had kidney cancer when she was 2, and saw her growth stunted as a result of her chemotherapy treatments, according to a story we ran in our June 23 issue.)
Frum: “You are obviously secular. How did you prepare yourself for ‘Shtisel’ and ‘Unorthdox’?”
Haas: “I was very young when I started doing ‘Shtisel’. I didn’t know much about the Orthodox world. It didn’t occur to me that it’s an Orthodox story. It’s a story about people. It brings people together.”
Frum: “It’s popular because it’s unusual, but also because it humanizes a group about which we don’t know very much. Did it change the dialogue in Israel?”
Haas: “It opened people’s minds – the power of watching art. People all over were suddenly interested.”
Frum: “Did you learn Yiddish for ‘Unorthodox’?”
Haas: “I found out that the Yiddish I needed to learn was completely different from the Yiddish I learned for ‘Shtisel’. Two of my favourite words from ‘Shtisel’ were a ‘bissel’ (meaning “a little”) and ‘koach’ (pronounced “coy-ach” – meaning “strength”).
“I know there are a lot of curse words in Yiddish, but I played Orthodox characters, so I didn’t learn any Yiddish curse words.”
Frum: ‘You’re on a list of the ten hottest Israeli women. (Haas blushed.) How are you going to play Golda Meir?”
Haas: “When she was a young lady she had lovers. I’m going to tell her story. I’m not going to imitate her.”
Frum: “Golda had an American accent. How are you going to pick it up?”
Haas: “Her Hebrew was good, but not as good as her English or Yiddish. She learned Hebrew in her 20s.”
Question from Daniel Chamovitz: “Without Covid, would you be where you are today” (referring to the fact that ‘Unorthodox’ first debuted on Netflix on March 26, 2020 – just as so much of the world was going into lockdown mode)?
Haas: “The first time I knew it (‘Unorthodox’) was a big success was when I was in quarantine and I looked out my window and saw my face on so many screens. I wish circumstances were different.”
Chamovitz: “Covid opened up markets for smaller scale TV shows. Shira, I read that you said you might have been a psychologist. Is that something you’d still consider doing? We have a great psychology program at Ben Gurion University.”
Haas: “Yes, I know. My sister studied psychology at Ben Gurion for her first degree.”
Frum began reading questions sent in by audience members. The first one was: “Time Magazine named you one of the 100 most influential people in the world. How do you feel about that?”
Haas: “It’s amazing. Here I am in Tel Aviv in my pajamas. It’s hard to think of me as one of the 100 most influential people in the world!”
Question: “Are you very active on social media?”
Haas: “Not much. I have an Instagram account, but to me it is something that doesn’t come naturally.”
Chamovitz: “You said that as a child you were shy. Maybe that explains it (her not being active on social media).”
Frum: “I wonder about that – you’re being private and interior, and forcing yourself to expose yourself A lot of times actors let their acting speak for themselves rather than talking.”
Frum: “Why do you feel it’s important to do events such as these? We’re in a moment when it’s not so easy.”
Haas: “I am Jewish, I am Israeli. Even if I play Mary Magdalene, I’m still Shira. I’m very proud Ben Gurion University is where my sister studied, and where my best friend is now studying.”
Frum: “Do you feel pressure to be a voice for Israel?“
Haas: “I don’t have to be political to do what I do.”
Frum: “Are you close with the ‘Shtisel’ family? Will there be a Season 4?”
Haas: “Very close. They will forever by my ‘mishpoche’. (But), it doesn’t feel like there will be a fourth season.”
At that point, various representatives of CABGU came on screen to thank Shira Haas and Linda Frum. And, even though it was the middle of the night in Israel, Shira said she had enjoyed herself so much she would have liked to continue. (There’s an idea for some other Winnipeg organizations.) It was a truly delightful evening. There’s something to be said for a well-planned online event. Congratulations to the organizers.
Features
Today’s Antizionism is Jew-Hatred
By HENRY SREBRNIK The Jewish world has grown darker. I’m not going to compare the anti-Jewish hate that has spread across this and other countries since October 7, 2023, to the Holocaust, but we know that Jewish life has become far more precarious. And so much of the hatred flies under the rubric of so-called “antizionism,” with people claiming that this isn’t “antisemitism.” But this is a false dichotomy. And we know it when we see it.
“Antizionism” is not about the now arcane historical debates that occurred mainly within Jewish communities from the 19th century through 1948, in which those who became Zionists sought to actualize the Jewish ties to biblical Israel and recreate a modern state. By “Zionists,” today’s enemies are not referring to supporters of the 19th century self-liberation movement of the Jewish people, whose goal was to establish a national home. They known little of this history. They’ve never heard of Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha’am, Ber Borochov, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, or Chaim Weizmann.
As a derogatory slur, a pejorative, it simply means “Jew,” the way earlier words, now archaic, used to. Some call Jews “Zios.” They mean the Jewish people, who exist in opposition to everything good in the world, and who are figures of emblematic wickedness. In this they simply update what Nazis said a century ago. Hitler, too, was an “antizionist,” along with his racial antisemitism. It attacks Jews, here in Western countries like Canada – in the cities where they live, in the universities they attend, in the publishing houses where they send their manuscripts, and in the entertainment world where they act and sing.
Note that it calls itself antizionism, not anti-Israelism, so that the net can grab virtually every Jew who simply wants to see Israel not destroyed – and that’s the vast, vast majority. We Jews know what it means, regardless of what our enemies claim. Would anyone think that the term antisemitism means hatred of Semites?
Clearly a ludicrous idea; it was invented in the 19th century by a German Jew-hater, Wilhelm Marr, to make it sound more “racially scientific.” No one is fooled by that, of course, nor should they be by so-called “antizionism.” In its effects, it is for Jews a distinction with a negligible difference. It is meant to portray Jews as villains, and while it may fool some gullible people, it will deceive very, very few of us.
After all, as Michel Coren noted in “Roald Dahl’s Antisemitism Feels Painfully Familiar,” in the British magazine the Spectator March 16, “most Jewish people do in fact to varying degrees support Israel, partly because centuries of bigotry, violence, massacre, and attempted genocide have given them little alternative. They may oppose Israeli policy, may condemn the current government, may even want radical compromises, but there’s still support. And in the current climate of leftist and Islamist triumphalism, it’s all Zionism and none of it acceptable.”
Anti-Zionism is marked by three core “libels”: that “Zionists” are colonizers, guilty of apartheid, and committing genocide. (Actually, the only time we were settler-colonialists was when we conquered Canaan, but that was God’s doing!) Anti-Israel activists incorporate historical manifestations of anti-Jewish discrimination under the guise of anti-Zionist political activism, from the blood libel to Nazi-era tropes, mixed with contemporary academic theories. Anti-Zionism acts as a container for these historical tropes, blending them together with progressive talking points.
George Washington University professor Daniel Schwartz, in “Vocabulary Lesson,” Jewish Review of Books, Spring 2026, describes a pro-Palestinian demonstration in 2025 at his campus where a student held a placard with Israel at the center and spokes radiating outward to other evils: imperialism, white supremacy, even reproductive injustice. “This is not garden-variety political criticism of Israel policies or conduct. It invokes a symbolic architecture in which the Jewish state becomes the universal source of global suffering — a structure with deep resonance in antisemitic thought.”
Scholars argue that it is the third major iteration of discrimination against Jews. The first was anti-Judaism, based on religion, the second was antisemitism, focused on race, and the third, anti-Zionism, is a hatred of Jewish peoplehood.
“Anti-Zionism transforms the very meaning of Zionism,” contends Adam Louis-Klein. “The Jew is reconstructed through a new symbolic logic and a new repertoire of stereotypes.” Where antisemites invoked the pseudo-biological figure of “the Semite” to cast Jews as an Oriental race infiltrating the West, anti-Zionists invoke the authority of the social sciences to recode the Jew as the “Zionist,” a European colonizer destined to commit genocide of a non-European population.
“Erasing Jewish indigeneity and severing Jewish belonging to the land of Israel, anti-Zionism transforms the race polluter of antisemitism into the white settler of anti-Zionism,” he asserts in his March 24, 2026 Free Press article “Yes, Anti-Zionism Is Discrimination.”
For this reason, he writes, it’s imperative that organizations and institutions committed to protecting Jews and fighting the scourge of Jew-hatred start condemning—clearly and without apology—antisemitism and antizionism. This goes to the moral core of the matter: the right of Jews to a homeland versus the bigotry of those who deny them that right.
After the Holocaust, explicit Jew-hatred became unfashionable in polite society, but the impulse never disappeared. The workaround was simple: separate Zionism from Judaism in name, then recycle every old anti-Jewish trope and pin it on “the Zionists.”
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Artificial Intelligence, Sports Data, and What It Means for Community Values
Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly visible part of modern life, shaping how information is analyzed and decisions are made. While often discussed in fields such as healthcare, finance, and education, sports analytics provides a particularly clear example of how these systems function in real time. For many readers, the relevance of this topic goes beyond sports itself and speaks to broader questions about technology and community values.
Within Jewish communities, where education, critical thinking, and ethical responsibility have long been central principles, the rise of AI invites meaningful discussion. Understanding how automated systems operate is not only a technical issue but also a cultural and intellectual one. In global digital environments, references to platforms such as 1xbet Republic of Ireland often appear in discussions about real-time data processing, illustrating how widely these technologies are applied.
From Human Judgment to Algorithmic Thinking
Traditionally, interpreting sports performance required human observation and experience. Analysts would review statistics, assess player form, and make informed judgments based on knowledge built over time. While this method remains valuable, it is now being supplemented by artificial intelligence.
AI systems can process large volumes of data instantly, identifying patterns and trends that might otherwise go unnoticed. This shift reflects a broader movement toward algorithmic thinking—where decisions are increasingly informed by data rather than intuition alone.
For communities that place a strong emphasis on learning and inquiry, this raises important questions. How should data be interpreted? What role should human judgment continue to play? And how do we ensure that reliance on technology does not replace thoughtful analysis?
What AI Systems Analyze
Modern AI models draw on a wide range of data inputs to generate insights. In the context of sports, this includes:
- real-time performance data
- historical comparisons
- individual player metrics
- behavioural patterns
- external conditions
The ability to integrate these variables allows AI to produce highly detailed assessments. However, it also creates a layer of complexity that is not always easy to understand.
This challenge is particularly relevant in educational settings. As younger generations become more familiar with technology, there is a growing need to teach not only how to use these systems, but also how to question and evaluate them.
Ethics, Transparency, and Responsibility
The increasing role of AI naturally leads to ethical considerations. In Jewish thought, concepts such as responsibility, fairness, and accountability are deeply rooted and widely discussed. These ideas are highly relevant when considering how automated systems are designed and used.
One of the key concerns surrounding AI is transparency. When decisions are made by complex algorithms, it can be difficult to understand the reasoning behind them. This raises questions about trust and oversight.
Ensuring that AI systems are used responsibly requires a balance between innovation and ethical awareness. Community dialogue plays an essential role in this process, helping to define how technology should align with shared values.
A Community Conversation About the Future
The use of artificial intelligence in sports analytics may seem like a narrow topic, but it reflects a much larger transformation. Across many areas of life, data-driven systems are becoming the norm, influencing how information is processed and decisions are made.
For Jewish communities, this moment presents an opportunity for reflection and engagement. By approaching technology with curiosity, critical thinking, and a strong ethical framework, it is possible to better understand both its potential and its limitations.
Ultimately, the conversation about AI is not just about technology. It is about how communities adapt, preserve their values, and shape the future in a rapidly changing world.
Features
The moral degradation of Israel’s far-right is even worse than you think
By Dan Perry (Posted March 27, 2026)
This story was originally published in the Forward. Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.
This week, an Israeli Knesset member said something that should have been shocking, horrifying and unanimously condemned.
“I stand behind IDF soldiers in every situation,” said Yitzhak Kroizer, a member of the ultranationalist Otzmah Yehudit Party. Even if the “collateral damage is children or women — it does not matter to me.”
“In Jenin, there are no innocent civilians,” he added. “In Jenin, there are no innocent children.”
Kroizer was referring to a genuine tragedy: The killing of almost an entire Palestinian family by Israel undercover forces on March 15, near the village of Tammun. The forces opened fire on the family’s car as they returned from a shopping trip. Waed Bani Ohde, her husband Ali, and two of their young children Othman, 7, and Mohammed, 5, were killed. Two sons survived. The army says the car accelerated toward the forces; Palestinian witnesses say the IDF gave no warning before attacking.
It is tempting to dismiss statements like Kroizer’s as the rhetoric of the extreme. Indeed, I often find myself making that point when talking to people inclined to think the worst of Israel: They do not represent the majority, and not even the immoral government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But that, while true, is becoming a little too pat.
For it is also true that as time goes, as the wars continue and hearts harden, what Kroizer articulated is a moral framework that is steadily taking hold in the Israeli right.
That’s why the statements were not condemned by anyone associated with the government. And, indeed, Israeli far-right activists responded to the deaths with social media posts rejoicing in the death of the unarmed “terrorists.”
No senior Israeli official apologized for the shooting. No one said publicly that even if the soldiers believed they were acting under threat, the killing of two children demands something more than a routine internal review.
No official has even conceded that this type of event might contribute to agitation and instability in the West Bank, and perhaps spark another uprising. Set empathy aside; even enlightened self-interest is beyond the current Israeli government.
Yes, an investigation has been opened. But military investigations almost never lead to concrete action against the troops. A Guardian report this week revealed that no Israeli citizen has been prosecuted for a killing in the West Bank since 2020, despite a radical uptick in violence; settlers and police have already killed 10 Palestinian civilians this month alone.
The undercover soldiers, especially, are something like the real life version of the international hit Fauda, widely admired for their counter-terrorism activity. There is little appetite for throwing the book at them.
So while it’s tempting to chalk this up as just another tragedy in a long list of tragedies on both sides, it is actually much more: a devastating manifestation of something fundamental — not just a personal tragedy but a national one.
That’s a tragedy I’ve seen unfolding slowly, since even before the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023.
I’ve seen it in the rhetoric of far-right leaders like cabinet ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. But I’ve also seen it firsthand, as when I found myself on wartime television panels where I was besieged by right-wingers enraged at my assertion that innocents have been killed during the war in Gaza. I challenged one of them about whether this idea would include a two-week old baby.
“OK, maybe not the baby!” he conceded, unhappily.
The descent of part of Israeli society into this unforgivable lack of compassion is, some have argued, an inevitable outcome of indefinite control over the Palestinian territories. For years, warnings that rule over millions of disenfranchised Arabs would mutate Israel’s character were treated as excessive, even hysterical.
Israel was not a colonial power in the classic sense, its defenders argued; it was a democracy under siege, navigating impossible dilemmas. The West Bank may be “occupied” but that was justifiable because of the threat its near proximity posed. Israel’s actions might be harsh, but they were necessary, the argument went. It was said that the country’s moral core, despite pressures, would remain intact.
The initial signs after this latest tragedy are not exactly reassuring. Far from condemning Kroizer, as they rightly should have, the cabinet convened this week to offer his party a great gift: the legalization of 30 illegal settlement outposts, including some in “Area A,” which is supposed to be under full Palestinian control.
Israel did not begin this way. Its founding story was deeply bound up with an acute awareness of the need to maintain morality. The early Zionists envisioned a country that would be a “light unto the nations.”
As occupation has become an entrenched reality, most Israelis have wanted to look away; the problem is too complicated. This position may not be possible for much longer. The moral rot is too extreme. But the good news is that it has not infected everything and everyone. Israel’s public broadcaster devoted a segment to the Palestinian family’s tragedy, characterizing Kroizer’s statements as a disgrace.
The humanistic ideas through which Israel once judged itself have eroded. We must now hope that they won’t entirely vanish.
Dan Perry is the former chief editor of The Associated Press in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books about Israel. Follow his newsletter “Ask Questions Later” at danperry.substack.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward. Discover more perspectives in Opinion. To contact Opinion authors, email opinion@forward.com.
This story was originally published on the Forward.