Connect with us

Uncategorized

American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?

(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.

The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.

“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.

“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”

The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.

Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.

“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”

Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)

We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?

Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.

I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.

Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.

What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.

I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?

I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.

If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.

But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.

So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?

First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.

There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.

It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.

One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.

What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?

I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.

It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.

There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?

Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.

But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.

So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.

The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.

There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.

I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?

Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.

I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.

And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.

But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.

And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.

Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.

The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?

Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.

So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.


The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel’s reputation is in free fall. One radical change could help

Israeli settlers spent months ramping up a campaign of terror against Palestinians in the West Bank — torching mosques, Qurans and farmland; attacking innocent civilians; and defacing IDF bases — before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even weakly condemned these “riots” for violating Israeli law. And that statement, issued on Sunday, only came because of international outrage.

If you want to understand why Americans are abandoning Israel, that long silence is your answer. Israel’s opponents frame the state as hellbent on ridding the land of Palestinians by any means necessary, and the American public increasingly believe them. When Israel’s leaders and supporters turn a blind eye to lawless settlers, and the Palestinian suffering they create, that belief is reinforced.

For that to change, the response to settler violence has to change. Israel and its supporters must try to expunge this extremism from its circles.

That will not be easy, because settler violence is not a new phenomenon.

For the last 50 years, a radical ideology preaching Israeli dominance, and advocating Palestinian expulsion, has spread among settlers’ ranks. And they have come to expect impunity for extremist acts, because for much of that time, Israeli leadership failed to impose strict or meaningful consequences.

The attacks hit a fever pitch in the last two years, reaching an all-time high this October. In one notable example from two years ago, swaths of settlers rampaged through the Palestinian village of Huwara, leaving one Palestinian dead, about 100 injured and the entire town ablaze. The Israeli army did not intervene, and hardly anyone was punished.

The fact that extremists like the far-right cabinet ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — who often defend settlers in these cases — are prominently serving in Israel’s government indicts the Jewish state even further.

I understand that criticizing the state of Israel is a big no-no among pro-Israel organizations, which usually excuse their silence by saying they do not comment on domestic Israeli affairs. But this inaction is de facto acceptance. It’s a long-standing norm that needs to change.

In Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life, Joshua Leifer traces this loyalty to the 1967 Six-Day War, which provoked a broad deepening of Zionist sentiment among American Jews. The result was a relationship in which diaspora supporters of Israel were expected to support the state without criticism — because criticism was seen as playing into the hands of Israel’s enemies, who had so recently posed an existential threat to the state’s continuance.

The overwhelming power of that expectation was perhaps best shown in the experience of Elie Wiesel — the Nobel Prize-winning human rights defender who survived the Holocaust — who was met with outrage when he tried to critique Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank in the 1970s, particularly taking aim at settlement expansion.

“Wiesel was so upset by the Israeli reaction that he made a pledge to himself never to criticize Israel again,” writes Joseph Berger in his 2024 biography Elie Wiesel: Confronting the Silence. “And he never did.”

Against this backdrop, for pro-Israel groups and advocates to stand against settler violence is no simple choice — but it is doable.

The American Jewish Committee consistently calls out acts of settler violence, urging accountability and punishment. Other groups — such as the Anti-Defamation League — did the same in prior years, although the drop-off of such advocacy over the last few years has been stark.

But much remains to be done, because the silent devotion to Israel by generations past does not work today. Not for Americans at large, and certainly not for young American Jews.

“For an older generation of American Jews, a mythologized vision of a progressive, social democratic Israel served as a source of moral inspiration,” Leifer writes in Tablets Shattered. “That view is much less prevalent today.”

While many young Jews still view Israel in such a light, Leifer explains, increasing numbers “have only known Israel as an authoritarian state and regional military power hurtling down a path of ever more extreme ethnonationalism.”

Pairing these conceptions with countless videos depicting masked Israelis brutalizing Palestinians and ransacking their properties in the West Bank, in addition to the devastation of the war in Gaza, it is no wonder why public opinion on Israel is in free fall.

American sympathy for Israel hit a 25-year low in March 2025. Views of Israel and its government worsen each year. Even American Jews are drifting — with 41% opposing more U.S. military aid to Israel and 39% believing Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The violence in the West Bank is almost certainly not the primary factor in that slide. But silence on it suggests that Israeli violence against Palestinians is acceptable — a stance that needs urgent and public correcting.

Condemnation is a necessary step, but words will not be enough to change the minds of opponents of the Jewish state. More crucially, supporters of Israel need to start taking steps to systematically combat extremism.

First, they must show zero tolerance for those who excuse or minimize crimes like those committed by settlers in the West Bank. Words without actions are meaningless, so pro-Israel groups must take steps to weed out those espousing views within their own community that align with the extremism now rife within settlement communities.

Second, they must unequivocally condemn violent rhetoric and actions against Palestinians. During the war against Hamas, for example, slogans like “no innocents in Gaza” and jokes mocking starving Palestinians ran rampant on social media from Israelis, including many Knesset members. Some were echoed by Israel’s supporters abroad. Pro-Israel groups must reject such rhetoric, as it applies to the West Bank as well as Gaza, immediately and forcefully.

Third, they must recognize Israel’s failure to subdue extremists and demand real accountability. They must demand investigations, prosecutions and punishments for violent settlers, insist that the Israeli government follow its own laws, and be prepared to impose consequences if those calls go unmet.

Claiming moral superiority while accepting extremism only reinforces distrust in Israeli narratives. Moreover, extremism of this flavor endangers the Jewish state itself by prolonging the conflict and degrading law and order.

This is not the behavior of a country committed to peace, justice and democracy — and the American public sees that. The absolutist narrative of total Israeli innocence is not only materially untrue but also entirely unconvincing.

Now is the time to pivot on the pro-Israel playbook and stand up for what we profess to care about. What Americans are looking for is not whether injustice takes place in Israel — but how the country and its supporters respond.

The post Israel’s reputation is in free fall. One radical change could help appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Exclusive: In bid for Nadler’s seat, Jack Schlossberg makes Jewish security his first priority

Jack Schlossberg, the online influencer turned political candidate running to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler, is making Jewish security a central pillar of his campaign in one of the nation’s largest Jewish districts. In an interview on Tuesday, Schlossberg, the grandson of former President John F. Kennedy, said that if elected next year, he would immediately introduce legislation to nearly double federal funding for security upgrades at synagogues and other Jewish institutions.

He dubbed it the “Jack-fast-track” plan — a strategy that would involve introducing the bill while simultaneously collecting the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition, allowing him to force a floor vote and bypass any potential delays in committee. “I don’t think we have any time to waste here because of how important this is,” said Schlossberg, who identifies as Jewish. “So no matter who’s in leadership in the House, this bill will see a floor vote.”

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program, established by Congress in 2005 and administered by FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security, provides funding to nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship, to bolster protection against potential attacks. Congress began significantly increasing its appropriations in 2018, in bipartisan fashion, following a wave of synagogue attacks nationwide.

The program currently stands at $270 million. Major Jewish groups have been pushing to raise it to $500 million amid rising antisemitic threats. Earlier this year, the Trump administration briefly froze the program as part of broader federal agency cuts, and some organizations have been hesitant to apply because of requirements that grantees affirm cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Schlossberg said there are at least 10 prominent institutions in New York’s 12th District that would benefit from this increase, including the Park East Synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, where his grandfather, Alfred Schlossberg, was president. The measure is a “big deal for NY12 because it’s a critical funding stream that these institutions really need and rely on to strengthen their security,” he said. “Here is something the federal government can do immediately for this district, and something that I will put my energy behind.”

Raised Catholic by his mother, Caroline Kennedy, the 32-year-old Schlossberg said he also identifies as Jewish and “occasionally” goes for services at Temple Shaaray Tefila with his aunt on his father’s side. He also attends Church services on Sundays.

Schlossberg is one of several candidates vying for the seat. Other candidates include Micah Lasher, Liam Elkind, and Cameron Kasky, who are Jewish; Assemblymember Alex Bores, whose wife, Darya Moldavskaya, is Jewish; and Councilmember Erik Bottcher. Jews account for about 30% of the vote in the Democratic primary.

In the last Democratic primary for New York City mayor, Schlossberg endorsed Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who is critical of Israel. In an interview with The New York Times after Mamdani’s victory in the general election, Schlossberg said it served as an encouraging sign for his own campaign. Mamdani has pledged to increase funding for hate crime prevention and to provide protection to Jewish institutions.

Addressing that Nazi salute, the first controversy of his campaign

Schlossberg, who announced his candidacy last week, has come under fire for performing a Nazi salute in a since-deleted Instagram video, after Elon Musk, the powerful billionaire, appeared to do a Sieg Heil salute at a celebration rally following President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. The Anti-Defamation League excused Musk’s move as an “awkward gesture,” but other Jewish organizations called it a dog whistle. Musk, the Tesla CEO whose relationship with Trump has since soured, has a history of endorsing antisemitic conspiracies online and allowing antisemitism on his platform, X.

In Tuesday’s phone interview, Schlossberg said that the video published by the Washington Free Beacon takes his motion out of context. “What I was trying to do is be like, ‘Okay, well, he just did it and claimed that that wasn’t it. And so that’s the world we’re living in now. How ridiculous is that?’” Schlossberg explained, saying his act was an attempt to draw attention to Musk. The Washington Free Beacon said that he was referencing Musk’s motion as well.

Schlossberg said that the hateful rhetoric and antisemitic attacks “have, in large part, been driven by the hard-right silo in American politics, especially Elon Musk.”

The post Exclusive: In bid for Nadler’s seat, Jack Schlossberg makes Jewish security his first priority appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Outgoing NYC Mayor Adams Says He’s Concerned About Safety of Jewish New Yorkers Under Successor Mamdani

New York City Mayor Eric Adams (L) speaks with Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) CEO Sacha Roytman at a special event in Tel Aviv, Israel, Nov. 16, 2025. Photo: CAM

Outgoing New York City Mayor Eric Adams said on Sunday that Jewish New Yorkers should be worried about their safety and the prevalence of antisemitism in the city when Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani takes office in January.

“If I were a Jewish New Yorker, I would be concerned about my children,” he added. “When it comes down to the energy that is brewing, there’s a level of concern that I know I have. And we need to be honest about the moment, because people want to sugarcoat the moment.”

Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities who has been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide;” refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.

Mamdani was elected as the new mayor of New York City earlier this month, beating former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa. Adams, who was running for reelection as an independent, pulled out of the mayoral race in late September.

Leading members of the Jewish community in New York have expressed alarm about Mamdani’s victory, fearing what may come in a city already experiencing a surge in antisemitic hate crimes.

The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) hosted a special gathering on Sunday in Tel Aviv’s Dubnov Gallery to honor Adams’ strong support for Israel and the Jewish communities in New York over the past four years, particularly after the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the global rise in antisemitism that followed. When it comes to confronting the rise in antisemitism, Adams was asked if he thinks anything has changed in New York over the last two years – following his famous “We Are Not Alright” speech in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities.

“No, we’re not [alright],” Adams replied. “We’re far from being alright. We’re going in the wrong direction.”

The outgoing mayor said that antisemitism is becoming “cool and hip” among younger generations due in large part to social media indoctrination, and organized efforts to normalize and spread anti-Israel and anti-Jewish false narratives. He called on Jewish organizations and their allies to formulate and carry out a “well-executed business plan” to fight antisemitism. He also expressed concern that the incoming Mamdani administration will not push forward on efforts to unite the city.

“I knew part of the role [as mayor] was to heal the city and bring us together, and there’s more healing to do. And I’m not confident that this incoming administration understands that,” he explained. “A lot of the work that we’ve started on many areas, but particularly the area of healing and bringing our city together, I think we are going to lose some ground on that, and that sort of troubles me.”

Adams stressed that leaders must not stay silent about hatred, urging Mamdani to understand that “being a mayor is both substantive and symbolic. They both go together. Your words can translate into the actions of others. Even if you disagree, you must be a leader for everyone.”

“The symbolism … There are things that we do to send a symbol that one is welcome. And he has failed to do that,” Adams said. “You cannot be slow on defining that you do not embrace a ‘globalize the Intifada.’ The symbolism of being a leader is just as important as the substance. I think he must stand up and show that he can be a leader of the city with all of this diversity. Even if you don’t agree or disagree, you must be a leader for everyone in the city because your words actually can translate into the actions of others.”

In his opening remarks at Sunday’s event, CAM CEO Sacha Roytman highlighted Adams’ longtime commitment to combating antisemitism.

Adams created the first-of-its-kind mayor’s office dedicated to combating antisemitism; signed an executive order adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism; established the city’s first Jewish Advisory Council; and launched the New York City-Israel Economic Council. He participated in CAM’s Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism in Athens, Greece, in 2022.

“You stood before leaders from across the globe and said that mayors must act and must not allow antisemitism to rise in their cities,” Roytman said.

“After Oct. 7, when antisemitism surged, you were out in the streets standing with us,” he continued, referring to Adams. “Your famous words — ‘We are not alright’ — still echo in our minds, because that is exactly how we feel when we see antisemitism rising and when we see who New York elected as its next mayor.”

“Your voice brings people together — Jews and Muslims, African Americans, and so many others,” Roytman added. “The friendship between Jews and the Black community is essential. Together, we can push back against hatred and build a better world.”

Reflecting on his tenure as mayor, Adams, who is Black, described it as “a relay” and talked again about Mamdani taking over in January.

“You run your mile and you hand a baton off, and my transition team, we’re going to do everything possible to hand off lessons learned, some of the things that we thought were great, and some of the things we could have done differently,” he said.

Adams also hinted that he might have a future connection to Israel. “I want to start speaking to the real estate agents here so I can find my place in Israel,” he concluded.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News