Uncategorized
A Rube Goldberg machine comes to life — literally — in a new dance piece
(New York Jewish Week) — Are we humans all parts of a meticulously crafted machine? Or are we independent beings, chaotically disrupting one another’s trajectories through time and space? Is there a difference between intentional and unintentional impact? Does it matter whether our movements are prompted by internal or external forces?
These are just some of the questions that surfaced as I watched footage of “Rube G. — the Consequence of Action,” a new work by acclaimed New York-based choreographer and dancer Jody Oberfelder. The piece — at once whimsical and thoughtful — explores the mechanical motions inherent in a classic “Rube Goldberg machine” (a chain-reaction contraption that typically involves levers swinging, cogs twirling, bits and bobs knocking each other on predetermined courses) as expressed through the human form.
Over four years in the making, the piece will make its debut March 4 at the Agnes Varis Performing Arts Center in Lower Manhattan. It will be performed for three consecutive weekends, culminating in a gala event on March 19.
The genesis of this 50-minute piece began four years ago, when musician Frank London of The Klezmatics was organizing an event celebrating 15 Jewish thinkers and creators — from philosopher Hannah Arendt to composer Morton Feldman — at the New York Public Library. Oberfelder, a director, choreographer and filmmaker dedicated to site-specific works that “expand how one experiences dance,” was invited to create a piece inspired by the work of Rube Goldberg (1883-1970), the Jewish cartoonist who drew his eponymous machines starting with Collier’s Weekly magazine in 1929. According to the Rube Goldberg Institute for Innovation and Creativity, these machines “solve simple problems in the most ridiculously inefficient way possible.” A classic example is the “Self Operating Napkin,” which wipes an eater’s face by using a combination of strings, counterweights and even a scythe.
Oberfelder was intrigued and, initially, a bit surprised by the assignment. “[Frank] said, ‘God, you’re Rube Goldberg! This is perfect for you!’ But it wasn’t until I started going deeply into research that I realized [he was right],” Oberfelder told the New York Jewish Week.
Oberfeld has had a long and illustrious career: She’s danced with and for the likes of composer Meredith Monk and choreographer Sally Silvers, and has traveled the world as a performer, guest choreographer and lecturer, from the University of Hawaii to London’s Victoria and Albert Museum. Still, this new prompt captivated her. “I realized we’ve been living the Rube Goldberg life all along,” she said, referencing the ways in which people are all tied together, an intricate array of human cogs. Soon, she was hooked on the ideas behind Goldberg’s fanciful genius.
An iconic Rube Goldberg cartoon, the “Self Operating Napkin,” was featured on a U.S. postal stamp honoring the cartoonist. (Rube Goldberg Inc.)
The resulting piece for the NYPL event was, according to Oberfelder, “a four-minute blast” that explores this idea. “We were running through the audience,” she told me, remembering that first dive into the world of order and chaos that is Goldberg’s philosophy. “[It seems like] a whole lot of something for nothing. But it is something — the joy of the moment to moment, while a marble is rolling down a slide, knowing that it [was there] and it worked.”
After that initial performance, Oberfelder wanted to explore more but, of course, the pandemic soon swept away any performance plans. Inventive as ever, she took the ideas she’d workshopped for London and created a second iteration: a film that combined over 300 clips of dancers responding to prompts like “spin” and “pop up.” Dancers and laypeople the world over, despite the social isolation, came together into a global Rube Goldberg machine.
Eventually, as COVID-19 restrictions lifted and the world began to open up, she took her new understanding of the themes and translated the film into a site-specific work that showed at Roulette, a Brooklyn theater, in 2021. That work was really the proto version of this newest take. It had the playfulness, the fun, the tumbling, the twirling. It wasn’t quite there, though. Not yet.
The piece explores big questions, including, as Oberfeld said: “What would a Rube Goldberg machine look like if it was performed by humans?” (Courtesy)
With “Rube G. — the Consequence of Action,” Oberfelder digs even deeper into her big idea — that everything we do is both influenced by others and influences others in both predictable and unforeseeable ways. To her, this idea has a philosophical connection to Judaism: “Everything here on earth happens and [it’s our lot] to live it to the fullest,” she said, adding that “the way in which we help each other along” is part of a Jewish ethos.
In the current iteration, four performers (including, briefly, Oberfelder herself) move in the space with a curious mix of clumsy and graceful motions. They are the machine — pushing, pulling, whirling in tandem — but their gestures seem, at times, independently determined. Are we all simply reacting to the actions of our peers? I wondered, as I watched one dancer dribble another one across the space like a basketball. Or do we have a choice in the matter?
While the dancers on stage explore the relationship one human has with another, a wild card, in the form of improvised audience participation, is added to the mix. Viewers who attend a performance of “Rube G. — the Consequence of Action,” may, at times, be called to interact with and define the direction of the piece. This element of the unknown will be folded into a meticulously planned piece which, like a Goldberg Machine, has a zillion moving parts that all seem random but somehow fall perfectly into place.
“During COVID, I got to a point where I was really analyzing the nature of performance and what I missed about it,” Oberfelder said. “What I felt was lacking was the effervescence of people coming together with different ideas to present something new…. I’ve tried to create an environment where we’re all here.” To Oberfelder, “all of us” includes the audience — and maybe people everywhere, too.
“It’s sort of like singing in the shower,” she added. “It’s nice, and it’s a great release. But actually, I would like these vibrations to go past my bathroom walls.” To that end, she’s brought her work to a simple space (“it’s just a big white box studio with very simple lighting”) and is welcoming audience members into the dance. As a result, each performance will be one-of-a-kind.
“What would a Rube Goldberg machine look like if it was performed by humans?” Oberfelder wondered aloud when we spoke, mulling over the various possible iterations. Now is our chance to find out.
“Rube G. — the Consequence of Action,” will be performed at The Agnes Varis Performing Arts Center, inside the Gibney Dance Center, at 280 Broadway on March 4-5, March 11-12 and March 18 at 7:30 p.m. A gala performance will be held on March 19 at 6:30 p.m. and will include post-performance food, drinks and a live auction. For tickets (from $15) and info, click here.
—
The post A Rube Goldberg machine comes to life — literally — in a new dance piece appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Car Torched in Antwerp in Suspected Antisemitic Attack, Says Belgian Official
A Jewish man rides past Belgian army personnel patrolling a street as part of a deployment of soldiers outside Jewish institutions in Antwerp and Brussels following attacks at Jewish sites in Belgium and other European countries, in Antwerp, Belgium, March 23, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
The torching of a car overnight in Antwerp, for which two minors were arrested, is being treated as a suspected antisemitic attack, a Belgian official said on Tuesday.
European countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, and Britain have witnessed incidents targeting the Jewish community since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on Feb. 28.
Belgium on Monday deployed soldiers on the streets of its biggest cities to bolster security at Jewish sites including synagogues and schools.
A spokesperson for the Antwerp prosecutor said an investigation was under way, and that the two suspects had been arrested shortly before midnight on Monday, moments after the attack.
They said a video circulating on social media that purportedly showed the arson attack appeared authentic and was part of the investigation. Reuters did not independently verify the video.
Over the past two weeks, synagogues have been attacked in Liege, Belgium, and in the Dutch city of Rotterdam, as well as a Jewish school in Amsterdam. In Britain, counter-terrorism officers are leading an investigation into an attack on Jewish community ambulances.
“There must be a thorough investigation and decisive action to put an end to this climate of intimidation before it spirals further,” Israel’s ambassador to Belgium, Idit Rosenzweig-Abu, said on X.
The SITE Intelligence website said an Iran-aligned multinational militant collective called Islamic Movement of the People of the Right Hand had claimed responsibility for the attack near a synagogue in Golders Green, London.
It said the group had been behind the fires in Liege, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam.
Mark Rowley, London’s police chief, said the claim was one of the lines of inquiry being pursued.
Uncategorized
Iran Toughens Negotiating Stance Amid Mediation Efforts, Sources Say
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a press conference following talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramil Sitdikov/Pool
Iran’s negotiating posture has hardened sharply since the war began, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exerting growing influence over decision-making, and it will demand significant concessions from the United States if mediation efforts lead to serious negotiations, three senior sources in Tehran said.
In any talks with the US, Iran would not only demand an end to the war but concessions that are likely red lines for US President Donald Trump – guarantees against future military action, compensation for wartime losses, and formal control of the Strait of Hormuz, the sources said.
Iran would also refuse to negotiate any limitations to its ballistic missile program, they said, an issue that had been a red line for Tehran during the talks that were taking place when the US and Israel launched their attack last month.
Trump said on Monday that Washington had already had “very, very strong talks” with Tehran more than three weeks into the war, but Iran has publicly denied this.
The three senior sources said Iran had only had preliminary discussions with Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt over whether the groundwork existed for talks with the United States over ending the war.
A European official said on Monday that, while there had been no direct negotiations between Iran and the US, Egypt, Pakistan, and Gulf states were relaying messages. A Pakistani official and a second source also said on Monday that direct talks on ending the war could be held in Islamabad this week.
Pakistan‘s prime minister said on Tuesday he was willing to host talks between the US and Iran on ending the war in the Gulf, a day after Trump postponed threats to bomb Iranian power plants, saying there had been “productive” talks.
However, the US was expected to deploy thousands of troops from the elite 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday, adding to the massive military buildup in the region and fueling fears of a prolonged conflict.
In a post on X, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan welcomed and fully supported ongoing efforts to pursue dialogue to end the war.
“Subject to concurrence by the US and Iran, Pakistan stands ready and honored to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement,” he said.
A Pakistani government source said discussions on a meeting were at an advanced stage and if it did happen, “a big ‘if,’” it would take place within a week. Pakistan has long-standing ties to neighboring Iran‘s Islamic Republic and has been building a relationship with Trump.
If any such talks were arranged, Iran would send Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to attend, the three Iranian sources said, cautioning that any decisions would ultimately lie with the hardline IRGC.
Iran’s use of ballistic missiles and its ability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas usually flows, have been its most effective responses to the US-Israeli strikes.
It could not agree to give these up without leaving itself defenseless against further attacks, analysts say.
Inside Iran, domestic concerns are also constraining Tehran’s maneuvering room in negotiations, the senior Iranian sources said.
These concerns included the greater clout of the Revolutionary Guards, uncertainty at the top of the system, with the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei having not yet appeared in photographs or video since his appointment, and a public narrative of resilience in the war.
Uncategorized
The JCPOA’s Sunset Has Arrived — and Iran Just Proved It
Deputy Secretary General of the European External Action Service (EEAS) Enrique Mora and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani and delegations wait for the start of a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna, Austria December 17, 2021. EU Delegation in Vienna/EEAS. Photo: Handout via REUTERS
On the night of March 20-21, 2026, Iran launched two ballistic missiles at the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean nearly 4,000 kilometers from Iranian territory. One failed in flight; the second was intercepted. Neither struck the base.
Iran’s Foreign Minister had stated weeks earlier that Tehran had deliberately capped its missile range at 2,000 kilometers. The gap between that claim and this week’s launch is not merely a military story. It is the story of the Iran nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and a direct answer to the question dividing Western foreign policy for a decade: what happens when the world tries to engage diplomatically with Iran?
On July 14, 2015, President Obama announced the JCPOA, and declared: “This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. We will be in a position to know if Iran is violating the deal.”
In 2026, that verification looks like a missile fired at a base 4,000 kilometers away, when Iran claimed its range limit was half that distance.
The Iran nuclear deal rested on a core assumption: that Tehran had come clean about its military history. The exposure of Iran’s nuclear archive by the Mossad, presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2018, proved otherwise. Tehran had transferred its ambitions to a classified track, preserving its knowledge base intact and waiting for the restrictions to expire.
The JCPOA’s sunset clauses tell the story plainly. In October 2020, the UN arms embargo expired, allowing Iran to legally purchase tanks and aircraft from Russia and China. In October 2023, all restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs expired. In October 2025, the nuclear file was removed from the UN Security Council’s agenda.
Obama acknowledged this in an April 7, 2015 NPR interview with Steve Inskeep: in years 13 through 15, breakout times would shrink toward zero. The deal bought time. The question was always what that time would be used for.
The financial consequences were immediate. Iran gained access to over $100 billion in frozen assets. EU-Iran trade peaked at 20.7 billion euros in 2017. Airbus signed a $19 billion aircraft deal. TotalEnergies signed a $5 billion energy contract. Iran’s GDP grew 12.5 percent in 2016, per IMF data.
When asked in April 2016 whether this windfall would empower the Revolutionary Guard Corps, President Obama, speaking to Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic’s “The Obama Doctrine,” argued that Iran’s infrastructure needs were too vast to leave room for IRGC expansion.
The evidence did not support that premise. The precision-guided munitions transferred to Hezbollah, the drones supplied to the Houthis, and the missile program that reached Diego Garcia were not funded by a government that ran short of money for domestic investment. The capital was fungible, and a revolutionary government proved capable of allocating it accordingly.
In that same interview, Obama called on Saudi Arabia and Iran to share the neighborhood, treating their rivalry as symmetrical rather than as a confrontation between a US partner and a state committed to violently reordering the region.
Within the administration, JCPOA preservation had become the flagship foreign policy achievement, generating a powerful institutional logic: any action risking Iranian withdrawal had to be weighed against losing the agreement. Governments in Jerusalem and Riyadh did not need to be told that escalation carried costs in Washington. Tehran read the architecture with precision. The years between 2015 and 2018 were among the most consequential in the construction of Iran’s regional proxy network.
The deal’s defenders argue, correctly, that it extended Iran’s nuclear breakout time from roughly two months to approximately one year, and that the 2018 withdrawal accelerated the nuclear advances it was meant to prevent. Iran today enriches uranium to 60 percent, a level prohibited under the agreement. These are factual claims.
The harder question is whether the framework was ever capable of a durable outcome. The sunset clauses suggest it was not designed to be. It was designed to buy time. In effect, it risked enabling Iran to reach a nuclear arsenal with international legitimacy. In such a scenario, the Middle East would face a new reality in which Iran possesses nuclear capability and reshapes the regional balance of deterrence. The missiles fired at Diego Garcia offer one answer.
Obama said in 2015 that the best outcome was to place Iran inside a box. The execution rested on assumptions that the nuclear archive, the proxy wars, and the Diego Garcia launch have each challenged in turn.
The next framework will need a different foundation: one that does not schedule its own obsolescence, does not assume capital flows moderate revolutionary ideology, and does not treat military responses to Iranian aggression as threats to diplomatic progress. Building it, before the current conflict forces the question under far worse conditions, is the most urgent task in Western foreign policy today.
Sagiv Steinberg is the CEO of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA), a leading Israeli research institute. He has an extensive background in senior leadership positions across the Israeli and global media landscape.