Uncategorized
Dave Chappelle isn’t the first to suggest that Jews run Hollywood. Here are the origins of the trope.
(JTA) – On “Saturday Night Live” last weekend, Dave Chappelle really wanted his audience to know there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood.
“I’ve been to Hollywood, this is just what I saw,” he said during his widely dissected monologue. “It’s a lot of Jews. Like, a lot.”
While suggesting that it might not be fair to say Jews run the industry, the comedian said that coming to that conclusion is “not a crazy thing to think.” Chappelle’s “SNL” episode drew a season-high 4.8 million viewers when it aired on NBC (eclipsing Jewish comedian Amy Schumer’s own hosting stint the week before), and his monologue had more than 8.1 million views on YouTube as of Wednesday.
The Anti-Defamation League was quick to denounce Chappelle’s act, calling it antisemitic. Other prominent Jews have followed suit.
“I was very disturbed to see him speaking, to millions of people, a lot of antisemitic tropes,” Pamela Nadell, a professor at American University who researches antisemitism, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
But Chappelle, who was himself riffing on recent antisemitism controversies involving Kanye West and Kyrie Irving, wasn’t exactly breaking new ground by insinuating that Jews run Hollywood. The trope has been a part of show business since its earliest days — when, in a literal sense, Jews did run Hollywood. Or the studios, anyway.
Nearly every major movie studio was founded in the early 20th century by a group of first-generation secular Jews who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe. Carl Laemmle (Universal), Adolph Zukor (Paramount), William Fox (Fox), Louis B. Mayer (MGM), and Benjamin Warner (Warner) were all Jewish silver-screen pioneers, laying the groundwork for the size and scale of the industry to follow.
But the industry has diversified greatly in the century since, with studios largely swallowed up by corporate behemoths. And while individual Jews may be overrepresented in an industry that has long welcomed and rewarded them, the rhetorical danger, Nadell said, comes in conflating a large Jewish presence in an industry with ownership and control of that industry.
“Jews remain active in Hollywood in a variety of roles, but it would be impossible to say that they run Hollywood, that they own Hollywood,” she said.
“Whenever the Jews enter into any kind of position where they might have influence over people who are not Jewish, then all of a sudden it’s seen as some kind of conspiracy.”
Conspiracy theories dogged Jews in Hollywood from the industry’s beginning. Because so many Jews were in control in Hollywood in its early years, Joseph Breen, who for decades ran the industry’s Production Code office and tried to make movies palatable to Catholic morality groups, blamed “the Jews” for sneaking sex, violence and moral depravity into the movies.
But their rise to the top of the still-young motion picture industry wasn’t because they were a part of some secretive cabal; it’s because, historians say, Hollywood provided a low barrier to entry for enterprising businessmen, and was lacking the antisemitic guardrails of more established industries.
“There were no social barriers in a business as new and faintly disreputable as the movies were in the early years of [the 20th] century,” historian Neal Gabler writes in his landmark 1988 book “An Empire Of Their Own: How The Jews Invented Hollywood.”
In the book, Gabler notes that the movie business, which evolved out of other professions like vaudeville and the garment industry where Jews had already found a toehold, lacked “the impediments imposed by loftier professions and more firmly entrenched businesses to keep Jews and other undesirables out.”
As such, Jews (particularly recent immigrants) were able to thrive in show business in a way they couldn’t in most other industries. Once they were in, family ties or the general phenomenon of affinity groups often led to them elevating other Jews in the industry: For example, prolific Jewish producer David O. Selznick, whose credits include “Gone With The Wind,” “Rebecca” and a huge string of other hits in the 1930s and ’40s, spent many years at MGM, run by his father-in-law, Louis B. Mayer.
Areas like the film, garment and publishing industries were attractive to Jews, Nadell said, “because there were so many other sectors of the economy where they were barred from.”
But in exchange, Hollywood’s prominent Jews had to effectively extinguish their Jewishness.
Yearning to assimilate into American society, the Jews who ran these studios were beset on all sides by antisemitic invective — first from Christian groups like the Legion of Decency, then by anti-Communist groups, both of whom accused Hollywood’s Jews of conspiring to undermine American society with their loose morals.
As such, the Jewish studio heads largely refrained from making any movies about Jewish themes, or snuffing out antisemitic content even within their own films, or otherwise exerting their influence in any obviously Jewish way, even as many of the Golden Era of Hollywood’s most acclaimed writers and directors (Herman Mankiewicz, Ernst Lubitsch, George Cukor, Billy Wilder) were also Jewish. “Gentleman’s Agreement,” the landmark 1947 film about antisemitism, didn’t have any Jewish producers, directors or major stars (though some of its credited writers were Jewish).
Famously, Hollywood’s Jews also went out of their way to avoid offending Hitler during the Nazi era, continuing to do business with Germany and largely avoiding featuring Nazis as villains in the prewar years.
Director Steven Spielberg speaks at the Academy Awards in Hollywood, Feb. 9, 2020. (Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
With the demise of the studio system in the 1960s, Jewish creatives ranging from Mel Brooks to Steven Spielberg to Natalie Portman no longer had to hide their identity from audiences, but instead made it an essential part of their public personas. Earlier this week, in a New York Times interview, Spielberg acknowledged that Hollywood was a welcoming place for Jews when he arrived as a young filmmaker.
“Being Jewish in America is not the same as being Jewish in Hollywood,” he said while promoting “The Fabelmans,” a loose retelling of his own Jewish upbringing. “Being Jewish in Hollywood is like wanting to be in the popular circle and immediately being accepted as I have been in that circle, by a lot of diversity but also by a lot of people who in fact are Jewish.”
Still, such ethnic affinity has often been deemed conspiratorial. “Hollywood is run by Jews” and “owned by Jews,” Marlon Brando declared in a 1996 interview with Larry King, further claiming that Jewish studio executives prevented antisemitic stereotypes from being depicted on screen while allowing stereotypes of every other minority group “because that’s where you circle the wagons around.”
(Despite this outburst, which prompted intense backlash from Jewish groups, Brando was known for having close relationships with Jews and demonstrating a strong understanding of Jewish theology and culture throughout his life, and apparently spoke Yiddish quite well.)
This general air of suspicion around Jews in show business has continued into the modern day, as evidenced by Chappelle and West’s comments. In the tweets that precipitated the collapse of his businesses, West singled out Jewish producers and managers in the entertainment industry he had affiliations with, echoing how believers in antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish control tend to fixate on Jews in leadership positions outside of the public eye.
Attorney Allen Grubman, left, and rocker John Mellencamp speak onstage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony in Los Angeles, Nov. 5, 2022. (Amy Sussman/WireImage)
Ignoring the many industry leaders who are not Jewish, such conspiracy theorists tend to focus on the successful managers and lawyers in Hollywood who are, including Jeremy Zimmer, Ari Emanuel, Allen Grubman — and Harvey Weinstein, whose decades of sexual abuse, scorched-earth targeting of his accusers and eventual downfall are the subject of the new movie “She Said.”
And in a similar fashion to Brando, Chappelle suggested that there is a double standard in talking about ethnic groups, with jokes about Jews being seen as taboo in a way that jokes about Black people and other groups are not: “If they’re Black, then it’s a gang. If they’re Italian, it’s a mob. If they’re Jewish, it’s a coincidence and you should never speak about it.”
At the same time as Jews in and out of the industry are fighting such perceptions, they are also pushing for greater visibility. The unveiling of the new Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles last year almost entirely omitted Jews from Hollywood’s founding narrative, leading to backlash from Jews in the industry and, ultimately, the guarantee of a new permanent exhibition space focusing on Jews.
And there was one other way in which the Chappelle episode hearkened back to the age-old dynamics of the relationship between Jews and Hollywood: “Saturday Night Live” executive producer Lorne Michaels, who presumably allowed the monologue on the air, is Jewish.
—
The post Dave Chappelle isn’t the first to suggest that Jews run Hollywood. Here are the origins of the trope. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The secret Jewish history of Dolly Parton
Dolly Parton, the musician, actor and philanthropist died Aug. 25 at the age of 80. A Christian known for her Christmas output, she nonetheless connected to Judaism through a cause dear to her heart: literacy.
In a “By the Book” interview, Dolly Parton told The New York Times that a copy of the Bible is always on her nightstand, next to a “daily devotional book.” In her memoir “Songteller,” Parton explains, “I’m not that religious, but I’m very, very spiritual. I grew up in very religious surroundings. I grew up with a Bible background, and I’m glad I did.”
Parton’s knowledge of the Jewish Bible is evident in several of her most beloved songs, including “Coat of Many Colors” and “The Master’s Hand.” The song “Coat of Many Colors” is based on Parton’s own childhood growing up in relative poverty and draws upon the story of the biblical Joseph. Parton sings, “As she [her mother] sewed, she told a story from the Bible she had read / About a coat of many colors Joseph wore….”
In “Songteller,” Parton recounts, “My mom made me this little coat. In order to make me proud of that little coat, I know now, she told me the story about Joseph from the Bible and his coat of many colors. So I thought, ‘Well, if it’s from the Bible, and Joseph was an important person, it has to be very special and important.’ Then when I went to school, the kids did not see that. They just made fun of my little coat. I had seen so much more in that coat than what Mama had sewn, things sewn into my body, my soul, my everything. Mama had made it and told the story and made it all seem so real. It was so mind-warping and heart-shattering to me when they made fun of it. In my mind, I thought I looked just like Joseph. But the kids didn’t, and it crushed me.”
Her song “The Master’s Hand,” written in 1971, displays Parton’s deep immersion not only in the Five Books of Moses but also in the Writings — specifically, the Book of Daniel. The song begins by recounting the familiar story of Noah thusly:
In the days before the flood
The world grew wicked and corrupt.
But Noah was a good man,
And the Lord unto him came.
And He said to Noah, “Go build an ark.”
Noah did, and the sky got dark,
And a great flood destroyed everything.
Except for Noah and his wife
And their three sons and their wives
And a pair of every kind of creature
Walkin’ in the land.
And the people mocked.
And they made fun.
But ol’ Noah worked ’til it was done,
’Cause he was holding to the Master’s hand.
After the song’s refrain, it continues with the lesser-known story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, three figures from the Book of Daniel. The three are thrown into a “fiery furnace” after refusing to bow down to an image of Nebuchadnezzar II, the king of Babylon. Rewarded for their loyalty to God, the three miraculously survive the fire. Or, as Dolly Parton puts it:
Three Hebrew children in days of old
Were marched into the fiery coals,
’Cause they would not deny the Lord,
Would not obey command.
And the furnace roared like a mighty storm,
But the Hebrew children saw no harm.
The flame was smothered by the Master’s hand….
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego
Had no fear of the fiery coals,
’Cause they were holdin’ to the Master’s hand.
“I know my Bible stories, like the ones I mention in this song,” Parton writes in “Songteller.”
Parton’s charity, the Imagination Library, a program with free books for children was the inspiration for Harold Grinspoon’s PJ Library, which provides Jewish-themed books to young readers.
“I’m always honored when my Imagination Library inspires others,” Parton said.
While Dolly Parton’s musical roots are in country and gospel, by the mid-1970s, with her career at a standstill, she was ready to reach a larger audience. Two Brooklyn-born Jewish men played essential roles in helping Parton make the leap from Nashville to mainstream pop stardom. Parton gives full credit to Sandy Gallin, one of the most successful talent agents from the 1970s through the 1990s, for helping her to achieve “crossover” success in music and to expand into TV, movies and even a theme park.
In 1977, Gallin convinced Parton to record a song called “Here You Come Again,” written by the Jewish husband-and-wife songwriting duo Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil. He brought in another Brooklyn native, Gary Klein, to produce the song and the album of the same name. The single cracked the Top 20 Pop Album charts and spawned her first Top 10 pop hit; the album was her first to sell millions. (Incidentally, her pop success didn’t come at the cost of her country credibility; the song sat atop the Country Singles chart for five weeks.) The song also garnered Parton her first-ever Grammy Award, for best female country vocal. Over the next few years, Klein produced a number of other hits for Parton.
But for Gallin, it didn’t end there. He convinced Parton to open the “Dollywood” theme park in Tennessee, and the two co-founded a production company, Sandollar, among whose many successes were the Steve Martin film “Father of the Bride” and the hit TV series “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” The producers won an Academy Award in 1990 for their AIDS documentary, “Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt.” Gallin also produced the Parton-starring movies “Rhinestone” and “Straight Talk.” Parton commemorated her friendship and loyalty to Gallin by writing “Sandy’s Song,” sung to the tune of “Greensleeves.”
In “Songteller,” Dolly Parton writes of Gallin, “We were so close and our relationship was so loving. We were from two completely different worlds, but we just clicked, somehow. He was just one of those friends that you find who you just know are going to be your friend forever.” For a time, the two even shared an apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. After Gallin died in 2017, Parton told an interviewer, “Nobody could quite get how the Christian Southern girl and the New York Jewish boy could have so much in common. But it was real.”
PJ Grisar contributed to this article.
The post The secret Jewish history of Dolly Parton appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A tourist’s guide to the vanished Jewish quarter of Warsaw
פֿאַרן חורבן האָבן אין וואַרשע געוווינט אַן ערך 370 טויזנט ייִדן — די גרעסטע ייִדישע שטאָט אין אייראָפּע און די צווייט גרעסטע בכלל נאָך ניו-יאָרק.
נאָך דער מלחמה איז די שטאָט און אירע ייִדישע אײַנוווינער, ווי באַוווּסט, געוואָרן איין גרויסע חורבֿה. דאָס גאַנצע רײַכע ייִדישע לעבן איז געוואָרן שטויב און אַש. אָבער אַ דאַנק די דיגיטאַלישע אַרכיוון, קען דאָס אַמאָליקע ייִדישע לעבן אין וואַרשע ווײַטער עקזיסטירן אין דעם מענטשלעכן דמיון, און מע קען עס ווידער אויפֿלעבן אין אונדזער תּקופֿה. אַ מענטש קען זיך פֿאַרטיפֿן אין די אַמאָליקע וואַרשעווער ייִדישע צײַטונגען, זיך פֿאַרלירן אין דער רײַזע אויף דער צײַטמאַשינקע, און זיך פֿאָרשטעלן אַז מע געפֿינט זיך אין וואַרשע אין 1938.
דאָס איז פֿאַקטיש דער רושם וואָס בלײַבט נאָכן דורכבלעטערן בני מערס נײַ בוך אויף העברעיִש, „מורה דרך: ורשה היהודית 1938“ (אַ וועגווײַזער צו דער ייִדישער וואַרשע, 1938), אַרויס אין 2025 בײַם מאגנס-פֿאַרלאַג. דער געדאַנק הינטער דעם בוך איז גאָר אייגנאַרטיק און אומגעוויינטלעך: צו שרײַבן אַ בוך הײַנט צו טאָג וואָס איז צונויפֿגעשטעלט ווי אַ בוך פֿאַר טוריסטן וועלכע ווילן באַזוכן דעם ייִדישן ייִשובֿ אין וואַרשע אין 1938; און דער „מחבר“ פֿונעם וועגווײַזער איז אַ וואַרשעווער ייִד פֿון יענע יאָרן, וואָס ווענדט זיך צו די דעמאָלטדיקע לייענערס.
בעצם איז דאָס גאַנצע בוך אַ שפּיל פֿון „לאָמיר זיך פֿאָרשטעלן“: אַ געשיכטע-בוך וואָס מאַכט זיך פֿאַר אַ טוריסטיש בוך, וואָס גיט פּרטים וועלכע זענען דעם הײַנטיקן לייענער דווקא אומניצלעך. דאָס שטייט אין שאַרפֿער סתּירה מיטן עצם געדאַנק פֿון אַ טוריסטיק בוך וואָס זײַן ציל איז צו געבן ניצלעכע פּרטים וועגן אַ געוויס אָרט. ווי מער שרײַבט אין דער הקדמה: „כּמעט אַלץ וואָס וועט ווײַטער געשילדערט ווערן אין אָט דעם וועגווײַזער עקזיסטירט ניט הײַנט… דאָס שרײַבן פֿון אַזאַ מין וועגווײַזער איז אויף אַ גרויסן מאָס דערמעגלעכט געוואָרן אַ דאַנק דער וועבזײַט ׳עיתּונות יהודית היסטורית׳ [דער היסטאָרישער ייִדישער פּרעסע].“
ווי יעדער וועגווײַזער פֿון דעם זשאַנער, איז דאָס בוך צעטיילט אויף דרײַ קאַטעגאָריעס: אַלגעמיינע קענטשאַפֿט, ניצלעכע אינפֿאָרמאַציע און די טורן. אויף דער ערשטער קאַטעגאָריע, „אַלגעמיינע קענטשאַפֿט“, קען מען לייענען וועגן דער שטאָטס געשיכטע, איר באַפֿעלקערונג, אירע לשונות, רעליגיע, ווירטשאַפֿט, קולטור, ספּאָרט, אַרכיטעקטור, חיות און פֿלאַנצן. למשל, ניט געקוקט אויף אַלע פּאָליטישע, רעליגיעזע און קולטורעלע מחלוקתן צווישן די וואַרשעווער ייִדן, האָבן זיי כאָטש איין זאַך געהאַט בשותּפֿות: די ייִדישע שפּראַך. ווי עס שטייט אינעם וועגווײַזער, רעדט מען אין דער ייִדישער וואַרשע בעיקר ייִדיש, ווי 88.9% פֿון די ייִדישע אײַנוווינער האָבן אין 1931 דעקלאַרירט. און זיי רעדן זייער אייגענעם ייִדישן דיאַלעקט מיט זײַנע אייגענע טערמינען. אַ באַלעבאָס, צום בײַשפּיל, הייסט אַ „וואַרעט“; אַ פֿינצטערער קאָרידאָר איז אַ „שטשאָנקע“; בכּיוון איז „אינאַמישנע“.
אויף דער קאַטעגאָריע „ניצלעכע אינפֿאָרמאַציע“ אינפֿאָרמירט דער וועגווײַזער דעם לייענער אין וועלכער צײַט פֿון יאָר איז ייִדן כּדאי צו באַזוכן וואַרשע (דער ענטפֿער: פֿרילינג און האַרבסט, ווען מע פֿײַערט דעם „חודש פֿון ייִדיש בוך“). צווישן די אַנדערע שאלות: וווּ אײַנצושטיין; וואָס צו עסן און טרינקען, פֿון אייער קיכלעך ביז וואַסער־פּלעצלעךף וויפֿל קאָסטן פֿאַרשידענע זאַכן? (אַ ייִדישע צײַטונג למשל קאָסט צווישן 10 און 30 גראָשן; אַ קילאָ קעז — 1 זלאָטע); וואָס צו לייענען אויפֿן וועג? פֿון וואָס מע זאָל זיך אָפּהיטן? (פֿון די גנבֿים, פֿאַרשטייט זיך) און ווי אַזוי מע קען אָנקומען קיין וואַרשע. מע לייענט אויך וועגן דעם פֿאַרקער אויפֿן וועג, דער פּאָסט, די בענק, דער פּאָליציי, די פֿײַערלעשערס, די ביבליאָטעקן, און נאָך און נאָך.
אויף דער טורן-סעקציע לייגט דער מחבר פֿאָר זיבן מעגלעכע טורן, למשל: אַ טור פֿונעם פּלאַץ גזשיבאָווסקי דורך דער קראָכמאַלנער גאַס – דער צענטער פֿון „דאָס פּלעצל“ (דער ייִדישער אונטערוועלט), פֿון וואַנען עס שטאַמען די דרײַ מחברים פֿון דער זעלבער משפּחה, י. י. זינגער, יצחק באַשעוויס זינגער און אסתּר קרײַטמאַן, און וווּ עס געפֿינט זיך אויך דער באַרימטער סאַסקי-גאָרטן; אַ טור וואָס דערפֿירט דיך דורך דער באַרימטסטער ייִדישער גאַס נאַלעווקעס, דער האַרץ פֿון ייִדישער וואַרשע, וווּ מחמת דער בליִענדיקער עקאָנאָמיע שפּראָצן דאָרט אויף יעדן שריט און טריט נײַע קיאָסקן פֿון זעלצער און אײַזקרעם; אָדער אַ שפּאַציר וואָס גייט דורכן צפֿונדיקן טייל שטאָט, אַרײַנגערעכנט דורך דער אָרעמער סמאָטשע־גאַס, וואָס ניט געקוקט אויף דעם דלות פֿאַרמאָגט זי דעם שיינעם „מעטראָ-קינאָזאַל“. בני מער האָט אַגבֿ מיט 8 יאָר צוריק טאַקע געשריבן אַ גאַנץ בוך וועגן דער סמאָטשע־גאַס (מאגנס, 2018).
„אַ וועגווײַזער צו דער ייִדישער וואַרשע, 1938“ איז אַ וויכטיקער בײַטראָג צום זשאַנער פֿון פּאָפּולערער געשיכטע, וואָס באַנײַט און באַלעבט די אַמאָליקע שטאָט דורך זײַן אויסנעמיקן פֿאָרמאַט. דער העברעיִשער לייענער וועט געניסן פֿון מערס ברייטער קענטשאַפֿט, הומאָר און טאַלאַנט ווי אַ דערציילער. ס׳איז פֿאָרט אומפֿאַרמײַדלעך, אַז בשעתן לייענען פֿילט מען זיך ווי מע דרייט זיך אַרום אין דער וועלט פֿון שדים און ווי מע ווערט געפֿירט דורך אַ „טויטער שטאָט“. דאָס בוך פּאַסט צום בעסטן פֿאַר די לייענערס וואָס זענען מסוגל אַ ווײַלע „צו סוספּינדירן דעם ספֿק“ און זיך איבערגעבן דער פֿאַנטאַזיע.
נאָכן איבערלייענען דאָס בוך, שטעל איך זיך אַליין די קשיא: וואָס פֿאַר אַ ווירטועלע פֿאַנטאַזיע אין דרײַ דימענסיעס וואָלט די אַלמעכטיקע קינסטלעכע אינטעליגענץ געקאָנט שאַפֿן פֿון מערס בוך? אויף אַזאַ סאָרט אויפֿלעבונג דאַרף מען נאָך וואַרטן.
The post A tourist’s guide to the vanished Jewish quarter of Warsaw appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Can an Oklahoma Senate candidate attract voters with an ad tossing out AIPAC ‘trash’?
(JTA) —Oklahoma grassroots activist N’kiyla Jasmine Thomas is facing off on Tuesday against centrist Jim Priest in a Democratic Senate race that has become the latest litmus test for progressive politics in a conservative stronghold.
The two candidates are battling at the ballot box for the second time this summer after neither of them secured the needed majority to win the June primary contest. Thomas, a nurse who has been vocal against AIPAC, earned 45% of votes in the June five-person matchup, while Priest, a lawyer and ordained minister, accrued 24%.
Both Thomas and Priest would be underdogs in the general election against Republican candidate Rep. Kevin Hern, who swept his primary and clinched the endorsement of President Donald Trump. Oklahoma hasn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate in more than three decades.
Nonetheless, Tuesday’s runoff will serve as a referendum on the potency of progressivism in a deep-red state, just a week after democratic socialist Angie Nixon knocked out her moderate opponent in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary.
Unlike Nixon, Thomas is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. She has, however, openly identified with socialist policies, while her opponent, Priest, calls himself a moderate.
Neither candidate has a wealth of political experience. Priest, 70, made a failed bid for Oklahoma attorney general in 2010 and was previously the CEO of two nonprofit organizations. His campaign priorities center on reducing the cost of living, making healthcare more accessible and inspiring confidence in government.
Thomas, meanwhile, is a 31-year-old citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, who says she represents “the next generation of leaders.” Among her key focuses are women’s health and safety, civil rights and LGBTQIA+ protections. She has also repeatedly pledged to never take money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Although the pro-Israel lobby has not been involved in this race, a November social media reel showed Thomas pulling a giant red trash bin, adorned with the labels “AIPAC Funds” and “Corporate PAC Funds.” Alongside the reel is a caption that reads, “Just taking out the trash.”
“I am a sole grassroots candidate,” she said in the reel. “And we are not accepting AIPAC or corporate PAC funds. It’s garbage.”
Asked about her rhetoric on AIPAC, Thomas told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “My concerns have NEVER been about Jewish people, Judaism, or Israel’s existence,” saying that she instead prioritizes human rights, civilian lives and the accountability of all governments.
Some voters see it differently. David Howman, a 30-year-old Jewish banker in Tulsa, said that although he’s “a fairly progressive Democratic voter,” he considers Thomas’s usage of AIPAC to be “a pretty cheap political tactic.”
“It’s kind of like a little grenade you get to toss out in there,” Howman told JTA.
“If AIPAC were funneling a bunch of money into the Jim Priest campaign, maybe that’s a conversation that is worth having,” he added. “But they’re not even touching this race.”
Though Howman voted for Priest in Tuesday’s runoff, he noted that a different candidate, Troy Green, was his favorite in the June primary.
When asked at a Saturday debate about Israel’s military actions, both candidates confirmed their belief in the existence of a “genocide” in Gaza. Only Priest, however, linked the word to Israel, while Thomas connected it to the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Priest recognized that Hamas “committed atrocities,” noting that “they kidnapped people, they killed people, they tortured people” and that “they should be held accountable.” But he also deemed Israel’s retaliation “disproportionate to the threat.”
“In response, Israel is committing genocide,” he said, accusing the Jewish state of preventing medical supplies and food from getting to people.
Expressing skepticism about both one-state and two-state solutions, Priest declared that “what’s needed is a 24-state solution,” in which the whole Middle East unites “in something like the Abraham Accords.”
The Priest campaign did not respond to JTA’s request for comment.
Thomas, meanwhile, emphasized that “we can be for our Jewish brothers and sisters, and we can be against Netanyahu and what he is doing.”
“He is committing genocide. He is absolutely murdering children,” Thomas said. “We have to stop providing funding for these wars.”
She also backed the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, noting that the U.S. should “not be on the side of another country that we don’t even have any ties to, outside of allyship.”
Thomas had previously refrained from using the word genocide in public statements, instead expressing “solidarity with Palestine” and calling for an end to “unconditional funding of Israel’s military.”
In her response to JTA’s request that she clarify her stances on AIPAC and Israel, Thomas provided a lengthy written statement.
“I stand with my Jewish brothers and sisters against antisemitism, hate and discrimination in all forms,” she said, referring to Judaism as one of the “most enduring faith traditions.”
Reiterating remarks she made at the debate, Thomas noted that “two things can be true at the same time,” and advocated for both the security of the Jewish people and a willingness to criticize “any government, including the current leadership of Israel.”
Thomas also voiced support for a two-state solution, explaining that “both Israelis and Palestinians deserve the opportunity to live in peace, security and self-determination.”
“When I discuss political influence or organizations, my focus is on the broader role of money, lobbying, and special interests in our political system, not on any one religion or community,” she added.
Regardless of who comes out victorious on Tuesday, Howman said that many Democrats will be heading to the ballot box this November with a pessimistic outlook.
“That’s kind of the challenge that we have here in Oklahoma,” he added. “There’s definitely a sense of defeatism on the Democratic side.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Can an Oklahoma Senate candidate attract voters with an ad tossing out AIPAC ‘trash’? appeared first on The Forward.
