Uncategorized
A history of Mel Brooks as a ‘disobedient Jew’
(JTA) — Jeremy Dauber subtitles his new biography of Mel Brooks “Disobedient Jew.” It’s a phrase that captures two indivisible aspects of the 96-year-old director, actor, producer and songwriter.
The “Jew” is obvious. Born Melvin Kaminsky in Brooklyn in 1926, Brooks channeled the Yiddish accents and Jewish sensibilities of his old neighborhoods into characters like the 2000 Year Old Man — a comedy routine he worked up with his friend, the writer and director Carl Reiner. He worked Jewish obsessions into films like 1967’s “The Producers,” which features two scheming Jewish characters who stage a sympathetic Broadway musical about Hitler in order to bilk their investors.
Brooks’ signature move is to inject Jews into every aspect of human history and culture, which can be seen in the forthcoming Hulu series “History of the World, Part II.” A sequel to his 1981 film, “History of the World, Part I,” it parodies historical episodes in a style he honed as a writer on 1950s television programs such as “Your Show of Shows,” whose writers’ rooms were stocked with a galaxy of striving Jewish comedy writers just like him.
The “Disobedient” part describes Brooks’ relationship to a movie industry that he conquered starting in the early 1970s. In a series of parodies of classic movie genres — the Western in “Blazing Saddles,” the horror movie in “Young Frankenstein,” Alfred Hitchcock in “High Anxiety — he would gently, sometimes crudely and always lovingly bite the hand that was feeding him quite nicely: In 1976, he was fifth on the list of top 10 box office attractions, just behind Clint Eastwood.
Dauber describes the parody Brooks mastered as “nothing less than the essential statement of American Jewish tension between them and us, culturally speaking; between affection for the mainstream and alienation from it.”
Dauber is professor of Jewish literature and American studies at Columbia University, whose previous books include “Jewish Comedy” and “American Comics: A History.” “Mel Brooks: Disobedient Jew” is part of the Jewish Lives series of brief interpretative biographies from Yale University Press.
Dauber and I spoke about why America fell for a self-described “spectacular Jew” from Brooklyn, Brooks’ lifelong engagement with the Holocaust, and why “Young Frankenstein” may be Brooks’ most Jewish movie.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “History of the World, Part II” comes out March 6. “History of the World, Part I” may not be in the top tier of Brooks films, but it seems to touch on so many aspects of his career that you trace in your book: the parody of classic movie forms, the musical comedy, injecting Jews into every aspect of human civilization, and the anything-for-a-laugh sensibility.
Jeremy Dauber: I agree. There’s the one thing that really brings it home, and it’s probably the most famous or infamous scene from the film. That’s the Spanish Inquisition scene. You have Brooks sort of probing the limits of bad taste. He had done that most famously in “The Producers” with its Nazi kickline, but here he takes the same idea — that one of the ways that you attack antisemitism is through ridicule — and turns the persecution of the Jews into a big musical number. It’s his love of music and dance. But the thing that’s almost the most interesting about this is that he takes on the role of the Torquemada character.
As his henchman sing and dance and the Jews face torture, the Brooklyn-born Jew plays the Catholic friar who tormented the Jews.
That’s right. And what’s the crime that he accuses the Jews of? “Don‘t be boring! Don‘t be dull!” That’s the worst thing that you can be. It’s his way of saying, “If I have a religion, you know, it is show business.”
His fascination with showbiz seems inseparable from his Jewishness, as if being a showbiz Jew is a denomination in its own right.
One of my favorite lines of his is when he marries [actress] Anne Bancroft, who of course is not Jewish. And he says, “She doesn’t have to convert: She’s a star.” If you’re a star, if you’re a celebrity, you’re kind of in your own firmament faith-wise, and so it’s okay. Showbiz is this faith. But it is very Jewish, because show business is a way to acceptance. It’s a way that America can love him as a Jew, as Mel Brooks, as a kid from the outer boroughs who can grow up to marry Anne Bancroft.
Jeremy Dauber is the author of “Mel Brooks: Disobedient Jew” (Yale University Press)
You write early on that “Mel Brooks, more than any other single figure, symbolizes the Jewish perspective on and contribution to American mass entertainment.” On one foot, can you expand on that?
Jews understand that there’s a path to success and that being embraced by a culture means learning about it, immersing yourself in it, being so deeply involved in it that you understand it and master it. But simultaneously, you’re doing that as a kind of outsider. You’re always not quite in it, even though you’re of it in some deep way. In some ways, it’s the apotheosis of what Brooks does, which is being a parodist. In order to be the kind of parodist that Mel Brooks is, you have to be acutely attuned to every aspect of the cultural medium that you’re parodying. You have to know it inside and outside and backwards and forwards. And Brooks certainly does, but at the same time you have to be able to sort of step outside of it and say, you know, “Well, I’m watching a Western, but come on, what’s going on with these guys? Like why doesn’t anyone ever, you know, pass gas after eating so many beans?”
You have this great phrase, that to be an American Jew is to be part of the “loyal opposition.”
That’s right. Brooks at his best is always kind of poking and prodding at convention, but loyally. He’s not like the countercultural figures of his day. He’s a studio guy. He’s really within the system, but is poking at the system as well.
You wrote in that vein about his 1963 short film, “The Critic,” which won him an Oscar. Brooks plays an old Jewish man making fun of an art film.
On the one hand, he’s doing it in the voice of one of his older Jewish relatives, the Jewish generation with an Eastern European accent, to make fun of these kinds of intellectuals. He’s trying to channel the everyman’s response to high art. “What is this I’m watching? I don’t understand this at all.” On the other hand, Brooks is much more intellectual than he’s often given credit for.
For me the paradox of Brooks’ career is conveyed in a phrase that appears a couple of times in the book: “too Jewish.” The irony is that the more he leaned into his Jewishness, the more successful he got, starting with the “2000 Year Old Man” character, in which he channels Yiddish dialect in a series of wildly successful comedy albums with his friend Carl Reiner. How do you explain America’s embrace of these extremely ethnic tropes?
Brooks’ great motion pictures of the late 1960s and 1970s sort of track with America’s embrace of Jewishness. You have “The Graduate,” which came out at around the same time as “The Producers,” and which showed that someone like Dustin Hoffman can be a leading man. It doesn’t have to be a Robert Redford. You have Allan Sherman and all these popular Jewish comedians. You have “Fiddler on the Roof” becoming one of Broadway’s biggest hits. That gives Brooks license to kind of jump in with both feet. In the 1950s, writing on “The Show of Shows” for Sid Caesar, the Jewishness was there but in a very kind of hidden way. Whereas, it’s very hard to watch the 2000 Year Old Man and say, well, that’s not a Jewish product.
What he also avoided — and here I will contrast him with the novelist Philip Roth — were accusations that he was “bad for the Jews.” Philip Roth was told that his negative portrayals of Jewish characters was embarrassing the Jews in front of the gentiles, but for some reason, I don’t remember anyone complaining even though the Max Bialystock character in “The Producers” can be fairly described as a conniving Jew. What made Brooks’ ethnic comedy more palatable to other Jews?
“The Producers” had a lot of pushback, but for a lot of other reasons.
I guess people had enough to deal with when he staged a musical comedy about Hitler.
Exactly. But the other part is that his biggest films are not as explicitly Jewish as something like Roth’s novel “Portnoy’s Complaint.” I actually think “Young Frankenstein” is one of the most Jewish movies that Mel Brooks ever made, but you’re not going to watch “Young Frankenstein” and say, wow, there are Jews all over the place here.
What about “Young Frankenstein,” a parody of classic horror movies, seems quintessentially Jewish?
The script, which is a lot of Gene Wilder and not just Mel Brooks, is really about someone saying, “You know, I don’t have this heritage — I’m trying to fit in with everybody else. My name is Dr. FRAHNK-en-shteen.” And then people say, “No, this is your heritage. You are Dr. Frankenstein.” [Wilder’s character realizes] “it is my heritage, and I’m embracing it. And I’m Frankenstein. And you may find that monstrous but that’s your business.” It’s about assimilation and embracing who you are.
And of course, Wilder as Dr. Frankenstein is unmistakably Jewish, even when he plays a cowboy in “Blazing Saddles.”
Right. Again, by the mid-’70s, you know, you have Gene Wilder and Elliot Gould and Dustin Hoffman, all Jews, in leading roles. “Young Frankenstein” ends up being a movie about coming home and embracing identity, which is playing itself out a lot in American Jewish culture in the 1970s.
I guess I have to go back and watch it for the 14th time with a different point of view.
That’s the fun part of my job.
You talk about what’s happening at the same time as Brooks’ huge success, which is, although he’s a little younger, the emergence of Woody Allen. You describe Brooks and Woody Allen as the voice of American Jewish comedy, but in very different ways. What are the major differences?
Gene Wilder, who worked with both of them, says that working with Allen is like lighting these tiny little candles, and with Brooks, you’re making big atom bombs. The critical knock against Brooks was that he was much more interested in the joke than the story. And I think with the exception maybe of “Young Frankenstein” there’s a lot of truth to that. The jokes are phenomenal, so that’s fine. Allen pretty quickly moved towards a much more narrative kind of film, and so began to be seen as this incredibly intellectual figure. In real life, Allen always claimed that he wasn’t nearly as intellectual as everyone thought, while Brooks had many more kinds of intellectual ambitions than the movie career that he had. There is a counterfactual world in which “The 12 Chairs,” his 1970 movie based on a novel by two Russian Jewish novelists and which nobody talks about, makes a ton of money.
Instead, it bombs, and he makes “Blazing Saddles,” which works out very well for everybody.
Although he does create Brooksfilms, and produces more narrative, serious-minded films like “The Elephant Man” and “84 Charing Cross Road.”
Right, and decides that if he puts his name on these as a director, they’re going to be rejected out of hand. There is a shelf of scholarship on Woody Allen, but if you look at who had influence on America in terms of box office and popularity, it’s Brooks winning in a walk.
You also mention Brooks and Steven Spielberg in the same sentence. Why do they belong together?
Partly because they had huge popular success in the mid-’70s. Brooks is a generation older, but they are hitting their cinematic success at the same time. And they are both movie fans.
Which comes out in their work — Brooks in his film parodies and Spielberg in the films that echo the films he loved as kid.
Until maybe his remake of “West Side Story,” Spielberg is not really a theater guy in the way that Brooks is, when success meant to make it on Broadway. When Brooks was winning all those Tonys in 2001 for the Broadway musical version of “The Producers,” it may have been almost more meaningful for his 5-year-old, or 7- or 8-year-old self than making his incredibly popular pictures.
You also write about Brooks being a small “c” conservative, a bit of a square. Which I think will surprise people who think about the fart jokes and the peepee jokes and all that stuff. And by square, I mean, kind of old showbizzy, even a little prudish sometimes.
I think that’s right. There’s a great moment that I quote at the end of the book where they are trying out the musical version of “The Producers,” and they want to put the word “f–k” in and Brooks is like, “I don’t know if we can do that on Broadway,” and Nathan Lane is like, “Have we met? You’re Mel Brooks!” He’s a 1950s guy.
Another place where this kind of conservatism comes in is when you compare him to other comedians of the 1950s and ’60s — the so-called “sick comics” like Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl who were pushing the envelope in terms of subject matter and politics. He wasn’t part of that. He was part of Hollywood. He was trying to make it in network television.
There is an interview in that era when he complained that people who are writing for television are not “dangerous.” Meanwhile, he himself was writing for television. But I think it’s fair to say that “The Producers” was really something different. You didn’t have to be Jewish to be offended by “The Producers.” But as we were saying before, he is more of the loyal opposition, rather than sort of truly out there. He’s not making “Easy Rider.”
An exhibit space at the Museum of Broadway evokes the scenery from the Mel Brooks musical “The Producers.” (NYJW)
“The Producers” is part of Brooks’ lifelong gambit of mocking the Nazis, I think starting when he would sing anti-Hitler songs as a GI in Europe at the tail end of World War II. Later he would remake Jack Benny’s World War II-era anti-Nazi comedy, “To Be or Not to Be.” And then there is the quick “Hitler on Ice” gag in “History of the World, Part I.” Brooks always maintains that mocking Nazis is the ultimate revenge on them, while you note that Woody Allen in “Manhattan” makes almost the opposite argument: that the way to fight white supremacists is with bricks and baseball bats. Did you come down on one side or the other?
To add just a twinge of complication is the fact that Brooks actually fought Nazis, and also had a brother who was shot down in combat. So for me to sit in moral judgment on anybody who fought in World War II is not a place that I want to be. What’s interesting is that Brooks makes a lot of these statements over the course of a career in which Nazism is done, in the past, defeated. Tragically, the events of the last number of years made white supremacy and neo-Nazism a live question again. When “The Producers” was staged as a musical in the early 21st century, people could say, “Okay, Nazism’s time has passed.” It’s not clear to me that we would restage “The Producers” now as a musical on Broadway, when just last week you had actual neo-Nazis handing out their literature outside a Broadway show. It would certainly be a lot more laden than it was in 2001.
Time also caught up with Brooks in his depiction of LGBT characters. Gay characters are the punchlines in “The Producers” and “Blazing Saddles” in ways that have not aged well. But you also note how both movies are about two men who love each other, to the exclusion of women.
There’s an emotive component to him about these male relationships. Bialystok and Bloom [the protagonists in “The Producers”] is a kind of love story. One of the interesting things is that as it became comparatively more comfortable for gay men to live their truth in society and in Hollywood, there was an evolution. In that remake of “To Be or Not to Be,” there is a much more sympathetic gay character who’s not stereotypical.
What other aspects of Brooks’ Jewishness have we not touched upon? For instance, he’s not particularly interested in Judaism as a religion, and ritual and theology rarely come up in his films, even to be mocked.
It’s not something that he’s particularly interested in. To him, being Jewish is a voice and a language. From the beginning of his career the voice is there. What he’s saying in these accents is that this is Jewish history working through me. It is, admittedly, a very narrow slice of Jewish history.
The first- and second-generation children of Jewish immigrants growing up in Brooklyn neighborhoods that were overwhelmingly Jewish.
It was a Jewishness that was aspirational. It was intellectual. It was a musical Jewishness. It was not in the way we use this phrase now, but it was a cultural Jewishness. It was not a synagogue Jewishness or a theological Jewishness. But of course he is Jewish, deeply Jewish. He couldn’t be anything else. And so he didn’t, and thank God for that.
—
The post A history of Mel Brooks as a ‘disobedient Jew’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
In celebration of David Attenborough’s 100th birthday, a very Jewish song
When the much-beloved English broadcaster David Attenborough was celebrated at London’s Royal Albert Hall with the tribute 100 Years On Planet Earth, a spoken word recording was played of Attenborough reciting the song “What a Wonderful World.”
Co-written by the Jewish songwriter George David Weiss, a Juilliard-trained musician, the song was originally intended for Louis Armstrong as a reflective follow-up to Armstrong’s peppy smash hit “Hello, Dolly!” by the Broadway composer Jerry Herman. “What a Wonderful World” was not universally acclaimed at first. Armstrong’s clarinetist Joe Muranyi later described Satchmo’s first reaction to the tune in a way that may be politely paraphrased as “What is this drek?”
The unabashed sentimentality, funereal tempo, and absence of any jazziness may have put off musicians initially, and indeed discouraged record company president Larry Newton (born Louis Nutinsky). Newton so loathed the very concept of the melody that he tried to stop the recording session and had to be physically removed and locked out of the studio. Later, Newton refused to promote the song, which had almost no immediate impact in America, although it became a #1 hit in the U.K.
“What a Wonderful World” expressed a Great Society optimism of the 1960s, which was overwhelmingly supported by American Jews, believing that successive generations would be better educated and the federal government would resolve systemic poverty and racial inequality. “I hear babies cry, I watch them grow/ They’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know,” Armstrong sang.
Meanwhile, the song acquired newfound popularity in 1999 when the saxophonist Kenneth Bruce Gorelick, known as Kenny G, added his own accompaniment to Armstrong’s vocals and other elements of the original recording. Jazz mavens were outraged, led by the guitarist Pat Metheny, who called Kenny G’s effort “musical necrophilia.” No such excoriations were heard in 2001, when punk rockstar Joey Ramone (born Jeffrey Ross Hyman), produced an exceedingly loud cover version with its own gritty integrity and authenticity. And in 2018, Barbra Streisand was generally praised for blending the song with John Lennon’s “Imagine” on her album Walls. As The Hollywood Reporter commented, Streisand’s purpose was likely to inspire hope during a crisis in American sociopolitical history, to offer a reason to “persevere during a period of cascading nightmares.”
The Attenborough event at the Royal Albert Hall also featured a performance of “Nature Boy” by the Jewish U.K. singer Sienna Spiro, whose full-throated singing recalls the precedent of the 1960’s Jewish U.K. singer Alma Cogan. The song Spiro chose to sing was written by George Alexander Aberle, who spent his early childhood at the Brooklyn Hebrew Orphan Asylum and adopted the pen name of eden ahbez, spelled with lower-case letters because, he asserted, only the words God and Infinity merited capitalization.
As was the case with “What a Wonderful World,” some controversy surrounded “Nature Boy,” originally popularized by Nat King Cole. The Belarusian Jewish-born composer and singer Herman Yablokoff claimed in a memoir that the melody of “Nature Boy” was plagiarized from his song “Shvayg mayn harts” (“Be Still, My Heart”), which he wrote for the play Papirosn (Cigarettes) in 1935.
At first, ahbez denied the charge, claiming to Yablokoff that he had first heard the tune in the California mountains, as if sung by angels. To which Yablokoff, with the brass-tacks realism of a Yiddish theater veteran, replied that the song was geganvet (stolen) and if any angels had been singing it, they must have purchased the sheet music of his song. Eventually ahbez’s lawyers offered an out-of-court settlement, which was accepted.
As far as the Attenborough concert is concerned, the tribute at the Royal Albert Hall brought to mind the case of Miriam Rothschild, a Jewish naturalist who preceded Attenborough in creating compelling nature documentaries. Rothschild was also a celebrated zoologist, entomologist and conservationist of lasting original achievements.
Nicknamed the queen of fleas due to her understanding of that life form, Rothschild was also an activist who saved lives of Jewish refugees during wartime, personally housing 49 children at her family estate and urging that laws be liberalized to allow more escapees from Fascist Europe to find safety in Britain. Perhaps tellingly, Rothschild also marveled at tiny mites that found refuge in the ears of moths. Her films did not dwell on the predatory violence of nature, which most other documentaries, even Attenborough’s, sometimes did to inspire thrills and chills among viewers.
With comparable compassion, Rothschild supported social causes including animal welfare, free milk for children at school, and gay rights by contributing to the 1957 Wolfenden Report which resulted in decriminalizing homosexual behavior in the U.K. By contrast, Attenborough, as a senior manager at the BBC, controller of BBC Two, and director of programming for BBC Television in the 1960s and 1970s, eschewed making public statements about societal issues until very recently, even those relating to climate change, as Nature Magazine observed in its centenary salute.
Yet by focusing on the world and latterly on damage from careless abuse of natural resources, Attenborough promoted biodiversity, renewable energy, and natural preservation areas, among other initiatives. And all Jewish TV spectators can only be grateful that as controller of BBC Two, Attenborough commissioned The Ascent of Man, the 1973 series in which Jacob Bronowski, the Polish Jewish mathematician and humanist, expressed his personal philosophy. In its own way a sometimes rueful homage to a wonderful world, Bronowski’s conclusions about nature and humanity were so powerful that they overshadow the occasional executive decision for which Attenborough later expressed regret, such as the budget-motivated 1960s destruction of archived BBC programs. As a result, much Jewish media history was lost, including The Madhouse on Castle Street, a 1963 teleplay with the then- little-known Bob Dylan among the performers.
Nonetheless, Attenborough’s series, which include Life on Earth, The Living Planet, The Trials of Life, The Life of Mammals, Life in the Undergrowth and many others underscore the fact that appreciating nature is a L’chaim to all of creation, the ultimate message of his long life’s work, much deserving of the praise it has received.
The post In celebration of David Attenborough’s 100th birthday, a very Jewish song appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Barney Frank’s final warning on Israel: ‘America’s effort should be to support the opposition to Netanyahu’
(JTA) — Barney Frank, for years the progressive conscience of his party who died on Tuesday night, had one last piece of advice for Democrats as he entered hospice care earlier this month: Repudiate litmus tests – except for Israel.
The United States should cut off weapons sales to Israel as long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not relieve Palestinian suffering, Frank told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency this month, using his imminent death to state bluntly what he believed other Democrats could not.
“It’s what the Democrats should be doing, it’s what America should be doing, and it should be what the Democrats are advocating, is giving an ultimatum that [Netanyahu] either changes things substantially in Gaza and the West Bank, or we cut off any aid,” the onetime congressional powerhouse said in a May 8 phone call from his home in Ogunquit, Maine.
“I’ve been talking about the importance of repudiating positions from the left and from the far left, but the Israel one is almost 180 degrees” different, he said. “It’s the one area where we are not doing enough in terms of making our position clear.”
Jewish lawmakers criticizing Netanyahu’s Israel was extraordinary a decade or so ago but has become commonplace. Frank’s plea, however, came from a lawmaker who grew up in a Zionist household and who was throughout a decades-long career in the U.S. House of Representatives solidly pro-Israel, albeit with occasional deviations from the pro-Israel lobby’s orthodoxy.
In one of his final interviews, he acknowledged being heartbroken by Israel under Netanyahu, recalling his family’s support for the struggle to shuck off the British mandate and create a Jewish state.
“We had a ‘boycott Britain’ bumper sticker on our car,” he said. His older sister, Anne Lewis, brought the family into the Zionist fold after a summer at a Habonim camp. “During my congressional career, I was very supportive, emotionally as well as politically and for a while earlier in this century, I volunteered and traveled at the request of Hillel to a couple of college campuses to defend Judaism and Israel.”
That would be hard to do in the current moment, he said. “I guess I held on longer than I should have to, ‘Well, we can work with them, etc’,” he said. “But it’s become clear to me, particularly due to what they’re allowing to happen in the West Bank, that it is important morally and politically to repudiate the policy of supporting Israel’s military activity.”
From the home he shared with his husband in Ogunquit, Frank in his final days took calls from the media well ahead of the scheduled publication of his book, “The Hard Path to Unity.”
He freely admitted he was doing a virtual publicity tour because his survival until the September launch date was unlikely. He knew he was leveraging his decline to be heard, and he didn’t mind that at all.
“Frankly, if I weren’t dying, people wouldn’t be paying as much attention,” Frank told The New York Times earlier this month.
His message in many of those conversations: Don’t make or break viable Democratic candidates on issues like transgender rights or Medicare for all.
“The key to liberal democracy being able to come back is to get rid of the perception, that we have allowed to grow, that the entire Democratic Party is committed to a series of very drastic social reconstructions that go beyond the politically acceptable,” he told the Times.
Asked at the outset of his interview with JTA if that advice extends to the pressure from some of the Democratic base on candidates to pledge to cut assistance to Israel, he offered a vigorous “almost the opposite” because of his conviction that the party should be more vocal in its opposition to the current Israeli government.
Frank was a fighter during his congressional career from 1981 to 2013. The leadership made him the lead antagonist to Newt Gingrich during Gingrich’s consequential speakership in the 1990s. Frank ascended to the leadership of the House Financial Services Committee at a key time, during the late 2000s financial crisis. He coauthored the last major banking reform bill, 2010’s Dodd-Frank.
He was a progressive lion, championing the battles against income inequality and for civil rights. He came out in 1987 as gay, the first sitting member of Congress to do so. He had a reputation as a curmudgeon, once silencing a Holocaust survivor for exceeding his time in congressional testimony.
Frank believed that incremental moves are more likely to bring about change than full-on advocacy for far-reaching changes. He had noted in interviews that the same-sex marriage he enjoyed with his husband came about because of a slow roll of change in LGBTQ rights, including ones he championed, like allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
The onetime leading progressive endorsed moderates in this year’s elections, backing AIPAC-supported U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens in the Michigan Senate primary. In his own state’s Senate race, he also backed Gov. Janet Collins, who recently ceded the primary to Graham Platner, an ascendant figure on the party’s left.
Frank believed anti-Israel orthodoxies could be as damaging as the far-left orthodoxies he decried. He remained appalled at voters disgruntled with the Biden administration’s pro-Israel policies who stayed away from the polls or even voted for President Donald Trump, and he used their example as one of two to illustrate why purity tests backfire. (The other is voters who faulted President Joe Biden for not doing enough to address climate change.)
“People who voted against [Kamala] Harris because they thought the administration had been too supportive of Israel achieved exactly the opposite of what they wanted,” Frank said, referring to the former vice president who faced Trump in 2024. “She would have begun by now to have cut back substantially on aid to Israel.”
He made clear in his interview that he rejected the extremes of Israel criticism emerging among Democrats, including accusations it has committed genocide in the war Hamas launched in 2023, and the argument that it should not exist as a Jewish state.
“Genocide is trying to wipe out the whole people,” he said. “The Holocaust was killing every Jew. Israel is not trying to kill every Palestinian. What they’re doing – I do not think its genocide, but it’s certainly unacceptable, morally and very damaging, politically.”
But he argued that in order to effectively confront the anti-Israel left in the party, Democrats must address what he says is the main enabler of its rise: Netanyahu and his policies.
“Netanyahu has been their enabler,” he said of prominent anti-Israel Democrats, including New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Senate primary candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
Frank was especially exercised by attacks by some settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank, attacks he said are enabled by Netanyahu and his coalition partnership with far-right patrons of the extremist settlers.
“My recommendation to Democrats would be to say, if Netanyahu does not reverse the harassment of Palestinians in the West Bank and substantially cut back on the military attacks, America should announce that we are no longer going to supply him with arms or be otherwise supportive,” he said.
“We’ve now gone to the point where supporting Israel has become unpopular, and that’s all Netanyahu’s doing,” Frank said. “No question that what he’s done is legitimize opposition to the whole notion of Israel, beyond disagreement with the specific actions.”
He sympathized with Jewish voters who feel alienated by Democrats and who could never bring themselves to vote for Trump (whom he reviled — he told reporters that his one regret is that he will not live to see Trump implode.) But he said the way forward is to cut off Netanyahu.
“I understand the dilemma people face if the choice is supporting Israel and everything that Netanyahu is doing and repudiating that,” he said. “We should make it clear that the right position here is to support Israel’s right to exist, but to be unwilling to facilitate what they’re doing militarily and to give them an ultimatum.”
Frank said the United States should actively support Netanyahu’s opposition as a means of leverage. He cited as an example the campaign he helped lead for the release of the spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard.
Frank spearheaded congressional pressure on President Barack Obama in 2010 mostly because he believed Pollard’s sentence was unjust. But he also thought that it would serve as an incentive to Netanyahu to cooperate more closely with the Obama administration on other issues. (The Obama administration engineered Pollard’s parole in 2015 and he now lives in Israel.)
Instead, Netanyahu became even more confrontational and moved further to the right. Now, Frank said, he would dangle the prospect of Pollard’s release before the Israeli electorate as a means of ousting Netanyahu.
“I now think America’s effort should be to support the opposition to Netanyahu,” he said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Barney Frank’s final warning on Israel: ‘America’s effort should be to support the opposition to Netanyahu’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jews used to conjure spirits and snakes in Belarusian
דעם 26סטן מײַ עפֿנט זיך אין ייִוואָ די אויסשטעלונג „ייִדן זענען מאַגיע‟ וועגן דעם ייִדישן אָקולטיזם. נישט לאַנג צוריק האָב איך אָנגעזאַמלט אַן אייגענעם מין ווירטועלע „אויסשטעלונג‟ פֿאַר זיך אַליין אויף דער דאָזיקער טעמע און אַנטדעקט עפּעס גאַנץ חידושדיקס: רײַכע אוצרות שפּרוכן און מאַגישע רעצעפּטן אויף רײַסיש (ווײַסרוסיש), פֿאַרשריבן מיטן ייִדישן אַלף־בית. עטלעכע פּראָפֿעסיאָנעלע מומחים אין ייִדישע און סלאַווישע פֿאָלק־טראַדיציעס האָבן מיר געזאָגט, אַז דאָס איז אַן עכטע וויסנשאַפֿטלעכע אַנטדעקונג.
מע ווייסט, אַז אויף רײַסיש האָט מען געשריבן מיט דרײַ פֿאַרשיידענע אַלפֿאַבעטן: די קירילישע, לאַטײַנישע און אויך די אַראַבישע, וואָס איז געווען פֿאַרשפּרייט בײַ די ווײַסרוסיש־רעדנדיקע טאָטערן. אַחוץ ריין מוסולמענישע טעקסטן, טרעפֿן זיך בײַ זיי אַ סך מיסטישע סגולות, וווּ פּסוקים פֿונעם קאָראַן ווערן צונויפֿגעוועבט מיט סלאַווישע שפּרוכן.
קיינער האָט אָבער ביז הײַנט נישט געוווּסט, אַז בײַ ייִדן איז פֿאַראַן אַן ענלעכע אַלטע און צעצווײַגטע טראַדיציע צו שרײַבן רײַסישע סגולות מיט ייִדישע אותיות. שוין 16 אַזעלכע כּתבֿ־ידן פֿונעם 18טן און 19טן יאָרהונדערט האָב איך אָנגעזאַמלט און איך בין זיכער, אַז דאָס איז בלויז דער אָנהייב פֿון אַ נײַ געביט אין דער ייִדישער און סלאַווישער לינגוויסטיק, פֿאָלקלאָריסטיק און געשיכטע. אין איין פֿאַל קלינגט די שפּראַך ווי אוקראַיִניש און נאָר טיילווײַז ווי רײַסיש; אָנגעשריבן האָט מען יענעם כּתבֿ־יד אין בריסק, ווײַסרוסלאַנד; עס קאָן זײַן אַן איבערגאַנג־דיאַלעקט.
אין 1921 האָט דער ייִדישער און ווײַסרוסישער שרײַבער און היסטאָריקער זמיטראָק ביאַדוליאַ (אמתער נאָמען – שמואל פּלאַווניק) אָנגעשריבן אַ קורצן אַרטיקל וועגן אַ ריזיקן כּתבֿ־יד, וווּ צווישן סגולות אויף לשון־קודש און ייִדיש טרעפֿט זיך אויך רײַסיש. צום באַדויערן, איז יענער מאַנוסקריפּט פֿאַרלוירן געוואָרן, און די פֿאָרשער האָבן במשך פֿון איבער 100 יאָר געמיינט, אַז דאָס איז, אפֿשר, געווען בלויז אַן איינציקער אויסנאַם־מוסטער פֿון ייִדיש־רײַסיש.
לאָמיר אַרײַנקוקן אין צוויי כּתבֿ־ידן, וועלכע זענען מיר אויסגעפֿאַלן צו טרעפֿן צו ערשט. איינער איז נומער EE.011.037 פֿון וויליאַם גראָסעס קאָלעקציע. פֿון אַ ריזיקן מאַנוסקריפּט זענען פֿאַרבליבן בלויז 14 זײַטלעך; 5 זענען אויף רײַסיש.
איין סגולה איז ממש אַ וווּנדער. ס׳איז אַ שפּרוך קעגן אַ ביס פֿון אַ גיפֿטיקער שלאַנג – „עקרבֿ‟, אַן עקדיש, וואָס אינעם ווײַסרוסישן פֿאָלקלאָר מיינט אַ שלאַנג; קיין עקדישן זענען אין ווײַסרוסלאַנד נישטאָ. עס שטייט אַזוי: צופֿרי, אַנטקעגן דעם קאַיאָר, דאַרף מען זיך נײַן מאָל בוקן אויף די קני און זאָגן „אויטשע נאַש‟ („אונדזער פֿאָטער‟, Lord’s Prayer אויף רײַסיש), ווײַל „דאָס איז זייער תּפֿילה‟ („כּי היא תּפֿילתם‟)! דערנאָך גייט מען אַרום דעם געביסענעם מיט אַ מעסער און שפּרעכט אָפּ די שלאַנגען. כ׳זעץ איבער אויף ייִדיש: „איינער איז אַ גאָלדענער, דער אַנדערער אַ זילבערנער, און דער דריטער – מיט הונדערט ציינער. ס׳צי זיי אַוועק‟.
ווי באַלד דער אומבאַקאַנטער סגולות־זאַמלער פֿונעם 19טן יאָרהונדערט איז געווען אַ ליטוואַק, שרײַבט ער אי אויף ייִדיש, אי אויף סלאַוויש, מיט אַ געדיכטן ליטווישן אַקצענט, אויסמישנדיק „ס‟ מיט „ש‟, „צ‟ מיט „טש‟ און „אוי‟ מיט „איי‟. די באַקאַנטע קריסטלעכע תּפֿילה איז בײַ אים אויסגעלייגט „אייצא נאַס”. די אַנדערע אַנטדעקטע כּתבֿ־ידן האָבן דעם זעלבן ליטוואַקישן אויסלייג.
אינעם באַקאַנטן מדרש „פּרק שירה‟ ווערט דערציילט, ווי אַזוי אַלע באַשעפֿענישן דאַוונען צום אייבערשטן מיט פֿאַרשיידענע תּנ״כישע פּסוקים. בפֿרט פּאָפּולער איז דער דאָזיקער מדרש בײַ פֿרויען; מיט אים הייבט זיך אָן שחרית אינעם באַקאַנטן ווילנער סידור „קרבן מנחה‟ מיט עבֿרי־טײַטש. ווען מע בלעטערט די אַלטע רײַסיש־ייִדישע סגולה־ספֿרים, ווערט אָבער קלאָר, אַז לויט דער פֿאָלק־טראַדיציע איז די נאַטירלעכע שפּראַך פֿון וועלדער און ווילדער נאַטור דווקא רײַסיש. אויב אַזוי, ווענדט מען זיך צו די שלאַנגען דווקא מיט אַ באַוווּסט ניט־ייִדיש געבעט!
ווײַטער, אין אַן אַנדער שפּרוך, ווערט דערקלערט, וווּ עס וווינט די שלאַנגען־מלכּה, „זמיייִצאַ־צאַריצאַ‟: „אין אַ וויסט פֿעלד שטייט אַ גאָלדענער באַרנבוים, אויף יענעם באַרנבוים איז אַ גאָלדן נעסטעלע, און אין יענעם נעסטעלע איז די שלענגעלע־מלכּהלה‟.
די שלאַנגישע מלכּות צי בת־מלכּות הייסן אין די אַנטדעקטע כּתבֿ־ידן קאַראַפּעיאַ, סאַכאַוועיאַ, מאַרינאַ, קאַטערינאַ און אַרינאַ. אָפֿט באַווײַזן זיי זיך ווי קאַסאָקע (קרום־אויגיקע) מיידלעך, וואָס זיצן אין עפּעס אַ פֿאַרוואָרפֿן אָרט. אינעם סלאַווישן פֿאָלקלאָר (און נישט נאָר סלאַווישן) רופֿן קאַסאָקע מיידלעך אַרויס אַסאָציאַציעס מיט שלאַנגען, עין־הרע, וכּדומה.
נאָך איין וווּנדערלעכער אוצר איז דער כּתבֿ־יד נומער 1226 פֿונעם בר־אילן־אוניווערסיטעט. דאָרט פֿאַרנעמט רײַסיש כּמעט אַ טוץ זײַטלעך. צו געפֿינען אַ פֿאַרבלאָנדזשעטן מענטש, שטייט דאָרט געשריבן, דאַרף מען אויסבאַקן נײַן בולקעס, גיין שטילערהייט צו אַן אויסגעוואָרצלטן בוים, בוקן זיך 27 מאָל, אָפּגעבן די בולקעס דעם וואַלד־רוח און בעטן אים אומצוקערן דעם פֿאַרלאָזטן. אײַ, קלינגט עס דאָך ווי אַן עבֿודה־זרה? ווײַזט אויס, האָבן ייִדן געמיינט, אַז ווי באַלד דער גײַסט איז בלויז דער בעל־הבית איבערן וואַלד, נישט קיין עכטער אָפּגאָט, איז אַזאַ ריטואַל סתּם דרך־ארץ פֿאַר אים.
אַ סך אַנדערע רײַסיש־ייִדישע סגולות האָבן צו טאָן מיט מכשפֿות, וועלף און בערן, פֿערד און בהמות, עין־הרעס, קינדער־קראַנקייטן, וכּדומה – בקיצור, מיט טיפּישע פּויערישע און דאָרפֿישע ענינים. גאָר וויכטיק איז צו באַמערקן, אַז אַ סך נוסחאָות חזרן זיך איבער במשך פֿון דורות אין עטלעכע זאַמלונגען, הגם זייער גראַמאַטיק איז צומאָל גרײַזיק, בפֿרט וואָס שייך די קאָמפּליצירטע סלאַווישע בייגפֿאַלן. דאָס ווײַזט קלאָר, אַז זיי שפּיגלען אָפּ אַ רײַכע אינערלעכע ייִדישע טראַדיציע, נישט סתּם איבערגעשריבן וואָרט נאָך וואָרט בײַ די קריסטלעכע שכנים.
איבעריק צו זאָגן, אַז ס׳רובֿ קמיעות און סגולות אין אַזעלכע זאַמלונגען זענען פֿאַרשריבן אויף לשון־קודש און אַראַמיש. נישט זעלטן זענען זיי אָבער אויך פֿאַרבונדן מיט דער סלאַווישער פֿאָלק־מאַגיע. די גאָר רײַכע טראַדיציע פֿון ייִדיש־שפּראַכיקע סגולות איז אויך ווייניק באַקאַנט און פֿאָדערט אַ סך ווײַטערדיקע פֿאָרשונגען.
The post Jews used to conjure spirits and snakes in Belarusian appeared first on The Forward.