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
US-Israel War Effort Bolstered by Growing Support in Middle East, Europe as Iran Left Isolated
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following United States and Israel strikes on Iran, as seen from Doha, Qatar, March 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
As Iran’s missile and drone attacks widen and prompt outrage, a loose coalition is forming of Middle Eastern and Western powers to act against Tehran, leaving the regime increasingly isolated as the US and Israel continue their military campaign.
On Monday, several Israeli media outlets reported that Qatar launched strikes against Iran over the last 24 hours, following what officials described as a series of Iranian attacks targeting the country and the broader region.
However, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Majid al-Ansari denied Doha’s involvement in “the campaign targeting Iran,” describing its actions as defensive in nature rather than part of any war effort.
“We exercised our legitimate right to self-defense and to deter Iranian aggression against our territory,” al-Ansari said in a statement.
The Qatari diplomat further confirmed that officials had prevented a planned attack aimed at Hamad International Airport in Doha.
“It is misguided to suggest that pressuring Gulf nations will bring Iran back to the negotiating table,” al-Ansari said.
“We received no advance warning from Iran regarding the missile strikes,” he continued. “The target was not limited to military installations, but extended to the country’s entire territory. Such attacks will not go unanswered.”
Amid escalating regional tensions, Saudi Arabia could also be drawn into the military campaign against the Islamist regime after two Iranian drones struck near the United States Embassy in Riyadh, igniting an explosion in the city. Saudi Arabia is considering a symbolic attack on Iran in response, according to Israeli media reports.
US President Donald Trump strongly condemned the attack, issuing a stark warning to Tehran and saying that Iranian aggression would be met with a forceful US response.
“They will soon learn the price of the attack on the US Embassy in Riyadh and the killing of American service members,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war this past weekend, Iran has reportedly launched 450 missiles and 1,140 drones toward Gulf states, a barrage that has pushed regional governments to distance themselves from Tehran and align more openly with the Israeli and American offensive.
As the conflict widened, Iran extended its attacks beyond Israel, targeting what it described as “US interests” across the region and launching missile and drone strikes that reached several Gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.
Iran “is now in complete isolation in the entire world, including among the Gulf states,” Darar al-Hol al-Falasi, a former member of the UAE’s Federal National Council, told the Israeli broadcaster Kan News. “The attacks were like the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Media reports also indicated Iranian strikes in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq, reportedly to preempt any uprising from Kurdish opposition groups, and an Iranian-made drone, likely launched by Iran-backed Hezbollah from Lebanon, striking a British base in Cyprus.
According to analysts, Iran appeared to believe that expanding the war and targeting Gulf states would push regional governments to press Washington toward de-escalation. However, the move has instead reinforced regional resistance and prompted closer alignment against Tehran.
Meanwhile, both Washington and Jerusalem have indicated that there is no fixed timetable for ending their military operation, stressing that actions will continue as long as necessary to neutralize the threat posed by Iran
“From the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that, we’ll do it,” Trump said in a statement.
“This was our last best chance to strike … and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime,” he continued.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar also said there is no set timeline for the joint military effort with Washington against Iran, describing the strikes as a necessary step to weaken Tehran’s leadership and strategic capabilities.
Initially cautious, European Union members are now gradually increasing their involvement, moving to safeguard strategic assets in the region against Iranian drone and missile threats.
On Tuesday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced an increased French military presence in the region, confirming the deployment of fighter jets to the UAE after an Iranian drone struck a French military installation in Abu Dhabi.
“Discussions are underway with France’s allies in the Middle East regarding the provision of equipment to strengthen their defensive capabilities,” Barrot said.
France will dispatch a warship and anti-missile and anti-drone systems to help protect British facilities in Cyprus after two drones targeting the British air base at RAF Akrotiri were intercepted.
Greece also announced its support for Cyprus, deploying four F-16 fighter jets and two frigates, including one carrying the Centauros anti-drone jamming system, while pledging to defend the island “by all necessary means.”
Britain said it would deploy the Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon and two Wildcat helicopters armed with Martlet missiles to strengthen defenses in the Eastern Mediterranean.
European support is expanding beyond Cyprus. French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday said France was sending its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean and working to build a coalition that would help secure maritime traffic.
“We have economic interests to protect, because oil prices, gas prices, and the international trade situation are being profoundly disrupted by this war,” Macron said in a televised address.
As Iran presses ahead with its regional escalation despite growing opposition, the United States, along with Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, issued a joint statement strongly condemning Tehran’s “indiscriminate and reckless missile and drone attacks” against sovereign territories across the region.
“We stand united in defense of our citizens, sovereignty, and territory, and reaffirm our right to self-defense in the face of these attacks,” the statement read.
Britain, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have also condemned what they described as “the indiscriminate and disproportionate missile attacks” by Iran on regional countries, saying the strikes pose a broader threat to regional stability.
“Iran’s reckless attacks have targeted our close allies and are threatening our service personnel and our civilians across the region,” the statement said.
“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” it continued. “We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.”
Meanwhile, China and Russia — despite their close ties to Iran — have so far limited their response to diplomatic statements and calls for de-escalation, echoing their restrained posture during last year’s 12-day war with Israel.
Moscow convened emergency meetings and publicly denounced the attacks but stopped short of offering material assistance to Tehran, despite the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty the two countries signed last year.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that Beijing opposes unilateral military action and supports Iran’s right to defend itself.
“China supports Iran in upholding its sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, and national dignity, while safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests,” the Chinese diplomat said in a statement.
“Major powers should not exploit their military superiority to launch arbitrary attacks on other nations, and the world must not return to a law of the jungle,” she continued.
Beijing is even urging Tehran to avoid disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — a vital passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and a key route for global energy shipments — as escalating conflict threatens international oil and gas supplies.
Iran has long threatened to close the waterway in the event of war with the US.
Uncategorized
‘Solidarity’: Faculty for Palestine Groups Urge Students to Stand With Jihadists, Remnants of Iranian Regime
A woman holds a photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as she takes part in anti-US protest outside the White House. Photo: Matrix Images / Gent Shkullaku via Reuters Connect
Anti-Zionist faculty on college campuses are cajoling students to support Islamism, jihad, and terrorism by recruiting them to participate in demonstrations for the revolutionary government of Iran, a regime which is responsible for killing American soldiers through proxy groups across the Middle East.
“Dear Students, I know it is very short notice, but for those who would like to participate in social protest against the US and Israeli war on Iran, Angelenos are gathering in 2 hours at City Hall,” Elizabeth Ribet, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, wrote on Saturday, signing off the note with “solidarity.”
“This email is a blatant example of a professor abusing her academic authority to politicize the classroom,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, higher education expert and executive director of the campus watchdog group AMCHA Initiative, told The Algemeiner in an exclusive statement. “AMCHA Initiative’s latest report documents hundreds of similar examples and concludes that when faculty blur the line between teaching and anti-Israel political advocacy, antisemitic hostility on campus rises. Recognizing this danger, more than 350 UC [University of California] faculty have recently urged the Regents to act. UC leaders must recommit to academic integrity and ensure classrooms remain places of scholarship and rigorous inquiry, not platforms for political mobilization.”
Ribet’s note is one of many communications that pro-jihadist student and faculty groups have issued since the US and Israel launched military strikes against Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the weekend.
Since then, The Algemeiner has reviewed over a dozen examples of faculty, specifically the Faculty for Justice in Palestine organization, proclaiming solidarity with Iran’s Islamist, authoritarian regime and lambasting the US and Israel for their joint operation.
“These u.s.-backed attacks are designed to spark a regional war, sacrificing the people of Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and beyond to further amerikkkan and zionist domination [sic],” said a post liked by the University of California Ethnic Studies Council, a body of professors who proposed an ethnic studies high school requirement for UC admissions. Critics have noted that the proposal pushed anti-Zionism in the classroom.
“Every drop of their blood spilled ignites our rage, our grief, and our duty,” the post continued. “We must continue to organize in solidarity with the Palestinian people, until the end of zionism [sic] and the liberation of Palestine.”
It added, “RESISTANCE IS GLORIOUS.”
The UC Ethnic Studies Council also shared a post by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, a far-left group that has defended terrorism against Israel, which said, “We reject imperialist and wear mongering narratives that position Iran as the intruder in the region, rather than US military bases and US interventionism.”
In Bronxville, New York, Sarah Lawrence College’s Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapter posted a volley of messages which called for “de-platforming Zionists” and ending military operations in Iran. The group also shared false claims that the US opened fire on Pakistani civilians.
Just miles away, Saint John’s University FJP group shared agitprop falsely alleging that the US intentionally targeted an Iranian school with an airstrike and has “always … sacrificed” children. The group also called for sabotaging the war effort by refusing to file taxes or to file by paper to delay the government’s receiving revenue. Meanwhile, the post suggested that agents in the government are prepared to participate in the conspiracy.
“The absolute bare minimum those of us in the imperial core should be doing is NOT FUNDING THIS SH—T,” said the post. “For example even just filing your taxes via paper slows down the IRS and makes it easier for other tax registers to make an impact with their actions as well.”
Bowdoin College, New York University, Bryn Mawr College, and Haverford College all have Faculty for Justice in Palestine groups sharing similar social media content.
The posts come after the Iranian regime killed tens of thousands of civilian anti-government protesters last month in a brutal crackdown. Iran for years has also been the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, according to Western intelligence agencies. For example, Iran funded, armed, and trained Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that perpetrated the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
College faculty not only promote terrorism but also play a singular role in triggering and accelerating the campus antisemitism crisis, according to a recent study by AMCHA Initiative.
Focusing on UC campuses as case studies, the study exposed Oct 7 denialism; faculty calling for driving Jewish institutions off campus; the founding of pro-Hamas, Faculty for Justice in Palestine groups; and hundreds of endorsers of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“While students are the most visible actors, faculty and academic departments are key institutional drivers of the hostile environment,” the AMCHA Initiative said following the report’s publication. “Across three campuses, many faculty who promoted anti-Israel activism through university channels had previously endorsed an academic boycott of Israel (academic BDS). The boycott’s guidelines explicitly call on supporters to implement ‘anti-normalization’ in their professional roles. These include excluding Zionist perspectives, speakers, and programs from academic life.”
The report followed previous studies revealing the extent of faculty misconduct in higher education promoting anti-Israel animus and even outright antisemitism.
Just last month, The Algemeiner learned that, according to a lawsuit, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University assigned a Jewish student a project on “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.”
Similar incidents have come at a fast clip since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre: a Cornell University praised the terrorist group’s atrocities, which included mass sexual assaults; a Columbia University professor exalted Hamas terrorists who paraglided into a music festival to murder Israeli youth as the “air force of the Palestinian resistance”; and a Harvard University chapter of FJP shared an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Zionists as murderers of Blacks and Arabs.
“The report documents how concentrated networks of faculty activists on each campus, often operating through academic units and faculty-led advocacy formations, convert institutional platforms into vehicles for organized anti-Zionist advocacy and mobilization,” the report stated. “It shows how those pathways are associated with recurring student harms and broader campus disruption. It then outlines concrete steps the UC Regents can take to restore institutional neutrality in academic units and set enforceable boundaries so UC resources and authority are not used to advance activist agendas inside the university’s core educational functions.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
New opera focuses on Tevye’s tragic daughter, Shprintse
דאָס איז איינער פֿון אַ סעריע קורצע אַרטיקלען אָנגעשריבן אױף אַ רעלאַטיװ גרינגן ייִדיש און געצילעװעט אױף סטודענטן. די מחברטע איז אַלײן אַ ייִדיש־סטודענטקע. דאָ קען מען לײענען די פֿריִערדיקע אַרטיקלען אין דער סעריע.
אין סעפּטעמבער 2025 האָבן אַ סך ניו־יאָרקער ליבהאָבערס פֿון ייִדיש הנאה געהאַט פֿון אַלעקס װײַזערס אָפּערע, „דער גרױסער װערטערבוך פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּראַך“. און איצט אין אַ פּאָר װאָכן אַרום װעלן זײ קענען געניסן פֿון זײַן נײַער אָפּערע, „טבֿיהס טעכטער“. אַפֿילו אין ניו־יאָרק איז די געלעגנהײט צו הערן צװײ ייִדיש־שײכדיקע אָפּערעס במשך פֿון זעקס חדשים אַ זעלטן פֿאַרגעניגן.
די קאָנצערט־פֿאָרשטעלונג פֿון „טבֿיהס טעכטער“ װעט פֿאָרקומען דעם 19טן מאַרץ, 7 אַ זײגער, אינעם מוזײ פֿון דער ייִדישער ירושה — אַ לעבעדיקער דענקמאָל צום חורבן (װוּ מען קען אַגבֿ אויך זען אַן אױסשטעלונג װעגן דעם ייִדיש־רעדנדיקן קינסטלער אַרטור שיק). די אָפּערע איז מערסטנס אױף ענגליש אָבער נעמט אַרײַן אַ סך ייִדישע װערטער און פֿראַזעס.
צװישן די זיבן זינגערס װאָס װעלן אױפֿטרעטן אױף דער בינע װעט זײַן גדעון דאַבי, װאָס איז געװען אַ שטערן פֿון „דער גרױסער װערטערבוך פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּראַך“. דאָס מאָל װעט ער זינגען די ראָלע פֿון טבֿיה דער מילכיקער, דעם באַרימטן פּערסאָנאַזש געשאַפֿן פֿון שלום עליכם.
„טבֿיהס טעכטער“ קאָנצענטרירט זיך בעיקר אױף פֿינף פֿון טבֿיהס װײַבלעכע משפּחה־מיטגלידער: זײַנע טעכטער שפּרינצע, צײטל, חװה און בײלקע (װאָס זענען באַקאַנט פֿון די אָריגינעלע מעשׂיות), און צײטלס אײניקל רױז — װאָס װײַזער און דער אָפּערעס ליברעטאָ־מחברטע סטעפֿאַני פֿלײַשמאַן האָבן אױסגעטראַכט צוזאַמען.
די דראַמע קומט פֿאָר טײלװײַז אין בויבעריק (אוקראַיִנע) אין 1907 און טײלװײַז אין די קאַטסקיל בערג אין 1964. אין 1907 שפּילט זיך אױס די טראַגעדיע פֿון שפּרינצע, װאָס פֿאַרליבט זיך אין אַ רײַכן יונגערמאַן. ער זאָגט צו אַז ער װעט חתונה האָבן מיט איר אָבער דערנאָך פֿאַרלאָזט ער זי, און זי װערט אַזוי פֿאַרייִאושט אַז זי נעמט זיך דאָס לעבן.
אַ טײל פֿונעם סיפּור־המעשׂה קומט אָבער פֿאָר כּמעט 60 יאָר שפּעטער, אין 1964, וועןשפּרינצעס דרײַ עלטערע שװעסטער צײטל, חװה און בײלקע זענען שוין אַלט צװישן 70 און 80 יאָר. זײ האָבן לאַנג צוריק זיך באַזעצט אין ניו־יאָרק, אָבער די זכרונות פֿון שפּרינצעס זעלבסטמאָרד לאָזן זײ נישט רוען. בעת זײ פֿאַרברענגען בײַ חווהס זומערהױז אין די קאַטסקילס קומט צו זײ צו גאַסט צײטלס אײניקל רױז, װאָס ראַנגלט זיך מיט איר אײגענער „פֿאַרװערטער“ ליבע — און װאָס װערט אַ ביסל „צו פֿיל צוגעצױגן“ צו דער סאַזשלקע לעבן דעם הױז. דאָס רופֿט אַוודאי אַרויס די פֿראַגע, צי איז רױז, װאָס ווערט געשפּילט פֿון דער זעלביקער זינגערין װי שפּרינצע, באַשערט דער זעלבער גורל פֿון איר עלטער־מומען?
װײַזער האָט מיר דערקלערט פֿאַר װאָס דער פּאַרשוין שפּרינצע שטימט ספּעציעל גוט מיט דער אָפּערע. לױט אים איז זי אַ פּערסאָנאַזש װעמענס קול איז אָפֿט פֿאַרשטומט. בײַ שלום עליכמען לייענט מען שפּרינצעס מעשׂה בלויז דורך טבֿיהס קוקװינקל. פֿון אָנהײב ביזן סוף זאָגט שפּרינצע אַלײן נאָר אַ פּאָר װערטער. טבֿיה באַמערקט אַז זײַן טאָכטער לײַדט אין דער שטיל, אָבער ער פֿאַרשטייט נישט די סימנים פֿון אירע יסורים.
װײַזער האָט אױך אָנגעװיזן אַז שפּרינצע געפֿינט זיך בכלל נישט אינעם מיוזיקל „פֿידלער אױפֿן דאַך“ צוליב דער שװערער טעמע פֿון איר אַלײנמאָרד. (אַ מײדל אין דער פּיעסע הייסט טאַקע שפּרינצע , אָבער מען דערמאָנט נישט איר מעשׂה). שפּרינצע איז דערפֿאַר כּמעט אומבאַקאַנט בײַם ברײטן עולם, בשעת איר שוועסטער צײטל און חװה זענען גוט באַקאַנט.
„צוליב אַלע די דאָזיקע סיבות װערט שפּרינצע אַ מין סימבאָל פֿון אַ טראַדיציאָנעלער ייִדישער װעלט װאָס איז אונדז אומבאַקאַנט, און װוּ די װײַבערשע קולות זענען אָפֿט פֿאַרשטומט געוואָרן. אונדזער אָפּערע גיט אַ רײַך בליק אין דער דאָזיקער װעלט און גיט שפּרינצען צוריק איר קול, װאָס זי ניצט צו דערצײלן די אײגענע מעשׂה פֿונעם אײגענעם קוקװינקל. עטלעכע מאָל זינגט זי אַז די מעשׂה איז אירע, און אַז דער טאַטע טבֿיה דאַרף נישט דערצײלן אױף איר אָרט“, האָט װײַזער געזאָגט.
כּדי צוריקצוגעבן שפּרינצען איר קול האָבן װײַזער און פֿלײַשמאַן איבערגעלײענט אַ סך ייִדישע ליטעראַטור אָנגעשריבן פֿון פֿרױען. זײ האָבן אױסגעפֿאָרשט די װערק פֿון קאַדיע מאָלאָדאָװסקי, סאַלאָמעאַ פּערל, בעלאַ שאַגאַל און אַנדערע מחברטעס װאָס האָבן פּרעכטיק באַשריבן די דערפֿאַרונגען פֿון פֿרױען. װי טבֿיהס טעכטער, האָבן די דאָזיקע שרײַבערינס זיך אָפֿט געפֿילט צעריסן צװישן דער ייִדישער טראַדיציע און די געלעגנהײטן פֿון דער מאָדערנער װעלט.
ספּעציעל װיכטיק בײַ װײַזערן און פֿלײַשמאַנען איז געװען די טראַדיציע פֿון תּחינות. די דאָזיקע פּערזענלעכע תּפֿילות אױף ייִדיש זענען לאַנג געװען פֿאַרבונדן מיט פֿרױען. אַ מאָל האָבן פֿרױען זײ אָנגעשריבן פֿאַר זיך אַלײן אָדער פֿאַר זייערע מאַמעס, שװעסטער און חבֿרטעס. אַפֿילו װען תּחינות זענען אָנגעשריבן געװאָרן פֿון מענער לטובֿת פֿרױען נעמען זיי אַרײַן וויכטיקע פּרטים װעגן װײַבערשע דאַגות און האָפֿענונגען.
װײַזער און פֿלײַשמאַן האָבן געלײענט אַ סך תּחינות, און צוזאַמען האָבן זײ אָנגעשריבן דרײַ נײַע תּחינות פֿאַר דער אָפּערע — װאָס האָבן צו טאָן מיטן צוגרײטן חלה, מיטן בענטשן שבת־ליכט און מיטן גײן אין דער מיקװה. די דאָזיקע נײַע תּחינות זינגט מען טײלװײַז אױף ייִדיש.
װײַזער האָט צוגעגעבן, אַז זײ האָבן אַרײַנגענומען תּחינות כּדי אָפּצוגעבן כּבֿוד דער װײַבערשער פֿרומקײט, װאָס האָט פֿאַרהײליקט די ייִדישע הײם און דאָס טאָג־טעגלעך לעבן. „אין דער אָפּערע זעט מען די שײנקײט, די װאַרעמקײט און די שׂימחה װאָס פֿרױען האָבן געשאַפֿן אין זײער װעלט“, האָט װײַזער געזאָגט. „איך װיל נישט זאָגן צו פֿיל װעגן דעם סיפּור־המעשׂה, אָבער דער װײַבערשער כּוח — דער כּוח פֿון פֿרויען־טראַדיציעס — איז אַ װיכטיקער טײל פֿון אונדזער אָפּערע“.
דאָ קען מען קױפֿן בילעטן פֿאַר „טבֿיהס טעכטער“.
The post New opera focuses on Tevye’s tragic daughter, Shprintse appeared first on The Forward.