Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

How Hezbollah Terrorists Became ‘Local Residents’ in the Media

Lebanese army members stand on a military vehicle during a Lebanese army media tour, to review the army’s operations in the southern Litani sector, in Alma Al-Shaab, near the border with Israel, southern Lebanon, Nov. 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Aziz Taher

During an operation earlier this month, the IDF reportedly clashed with Hezbollah operatives and “civilians” in the Lebanese village of Nabi Chit, leaving 41 people dead and another 40 injured.

At least, that is what CNN, the Associated Press (AP)Sky NewsBBC, and The Guardian all reported.

But not a single outlet actually questioned who these “civilians” were that clashed with the IDF, or why there were clashes in the first place.

The operation was carried out in an attempt to return the remains of Ron Arad, an Israeli navigator who has been missing since his fighter-bomber was shot down over Lebanon in 1986. He was believed to have originally been captured by the Amal Movement and handed over to Hezbollah, before being presumed dead.

As is the protocol with any missing person or soldier, the State of Israel works to recover every body for a proper and dignified burial in their homeland.

Based on intelligence, the IDF believed Arad’s body to be buried in a cemetery in Nabi Chit, a village located close to the Lebanese-Syrian border in the Beqaa Valley.

On Friday, March 6, well before the operation began, the IDF issued an evacuation warning, urging innocent civilians to leave.

The village has long been a stronghold of Hezbollah, with several past leaders, including the second secretary-general, Abbas al-Musawi, born there. Being that Hezbollah has systematically embedded its infrastructure and operatives into the town itself, many — presumably including a significant number affiliated with or supportive of Hezbollah — appeared to defy the evacuation orders, staying in their homes.

Late Friday evening, Israeli commandos entered the village, hoping to quickly locate the body of Arad and leave without disturbance. According to some reports, the IDF forces arrived undercover. Had the IDF been seeking a battle, it would have entered openly rather than disguised, indicating that the goal was a targeted retrieval mission, not a confrontation.

However, soon after the IDF’s arrival, a firefight broke out between Israeli forces and Hezbollah operatives. This is precisely where international media coverage begins — and where the crucial context disappears.

Hezbollah operatives are suddenly grouped in with the “civilians” or “local residents” who supposedly rushed out to defend their homes against an Israeli invasion, leaving their houses with guns to engage in battle with the IDF.

But the IDF had entered the village on a limited mission: to retrieve the remains of a fallen soldier. There was no broader offensive and no threat to civilian homes. That raises a fundamental question: why did so many outlets lead with descriptions of “residents” or “local fighters” joining Hezbollah in “defending their homes,” when their homes were clearly not under threat?

Following the ensuing battle between the IDF commandos and Hezbollah, the Israeli Air Force provided air cover through targeted strikes to ensure the safe extraction of all troops. Sadly, they were unsuccessful in locating the body of Arad.

By the time the operation ended, the Lebanese health ministry reported that 41 people had been killed and 40 wounded. Yet, when reporting these casualties, the media failed to acknowledge the obvious likelihood that many of those casualties were Hezbollah operatives — or what Sky News and AP described as “local fighters.”

The narrative that Israel intentionally killed innocent civilians was not limited to the international media, but quickly spread across social media.

Posts circulating online framed the operation as a reckless mission designed to target civilians with no clearly defined operational purpose. This is despite the IDF’s clear intention to limit civilian harm while preserving the dignity of all Israeli soldiers, no matter how long ago they fell in battle.

Hezbollah’s strategy of embedding its infrastructure and operatives within civilian areas has long blurred the line between civilians and combatants, resulting in armed terrorists who attack Israeli forces being framed in media coverage as innocent “local residents.” The IDF’s operation in Nabi Chit and the ensuing battle illustrate this strategy in full, exposing just how effectively Hezbollah has manipulated the media.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Forverts podcast, episode 8: Israeli voices

דער פֿאָרווערטס האָט שוין אַרויסגעלאָזט דעם נײַנטן קאַפּיטל פֿונעם ייִדישן פּאָדקאַסט, Yiddish With Rukhl. דאָס מאָל איז די טעמע „ישׂראלדיקע שטימעס“.

אין דעם קאַפּיטל וועט איר הערן צוויי אַרטיקלען: מיכאל קרוטיקאָווס רעצענזיע פֿון שירי שאַפּיראַס בוך דערציילונגען, וואָס אַנטפּלעקן דאגות פֿונעם „מילעניאַל“ דור, וואָס איר קענט אַליין לייענען דאָ, און בני מערס פּערזענלעכן עסיי, „דאָס אײַנפּאַקן אַ טאָרבע פֿאַרן לויפֿן אין שוצקעלער האָט עפּעס דערוועקט אין מיר“, וואָס איר קענט לייענען דאָ.

צו הערן דעם פּאָדקאַסט, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.

שירי שאַפּיראַס דערצײלונגען

The post Forverts podcast, episode 8: Israeli voices appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Tidbits: The first director of the Polin Museum is back

Tidbits is a Forverts feature of easy news briefs in Yiddish that you can listen to or read, or both! If you read the article and don’t know a word, just click on it and the translation appears. Listen to the report here:

 

דער ערשטער דירעקטאָר פֿונעם „פּולין מוזיי פֿון דער געשיכטע פֿון די פּוילישע ייִדן אין וואַרשע“ — דאַריוש סטאָלאַ — איז לעצטנס ווידער באַשטימט געוואָרן ווי זײַן דירעקטאָר. אַ צאָל אָבסערוואַטאָרן האַלטן אַז דאָס איז אַ סימבאָלישער נצחון פֿאַרן ייִדישן אָנדענק אין פּוילן.

באַלד ווי דער מוזיי איז געגרינדעט געוואָרן אין 2014 האָט סטאָלאַ, ווי דער דירעקטאָר, שטאַרק באַטאָנט דעם חיובֿ פֿון פּוילן צו אָנערקענען איר פֿאַרטיליקטע ייִדישע פֿאַרגאַנגענהייט. דער געוועזענער קולטור־מיניסטער פֿון דער נאַציאָנאַליסטישער פּאַרטיי, וואָס האָט דעמאָלט געהערשט אין פּוילן, האָט אים אָבער באַשולדיקט אין „פּאָליטיזירן“ דעם מוזיי.

סטאָלאַ האָט למשל אַרויסגערופֿן פּראָטעסטן בײַ די הויכע באַאַמטע פֿון דער רעגירונג צוליב אַן אויסשטעלונג אין 2018, וואָס האָט דאָקומענטירט דער רעגירונגס אַנטיסעמיטישע קאַמפּאַניע אין 1968, וואָס האָט פֿאַרטריבן ייִדן פֿון זייערע שטעלעס און געצוווּנגען בערך 13,000 פֿון זיי צו פֿאַרלאָזן דאָס לאַנד.

הגם סטאָלאַ האָט דעמאָלט געוווּנען אַ קאָנקורס צו פֿאַרלענגערן זײַן קאַדענץ האָט דער קולטור־מיניסטער אים פֿאַרטריבן פֿונעם פּאָסטן.

מיט אַ יאָר פֿריִער, אין 2018, האָט פּוילן דורכגעפֿירט אַ געזעץ, וואָס פֿאַרווערט דאָס באַשולדיקן פּוילן אָדער די פּאָלאַקן אין קאָלאַבאָרירן מיט די דײַטשן. שפּעטער האָט מען עס געביטן פֿון אַ פֿאַרברעכן וואָס דראָט זיצן אין תּפֿיסה אויף בלויז אַ ציווילער געזעץ־ברעכונג. קריטיקער טענהן אַז דער גאַנצער ענין האָט אָבער שטאַרק געשטערט דעם געביט פֿון פֿאָרשן די געשיכטע.

איצט איז סטאָלאַ ווידער באַשטימט געוואָרן ווי דער דירעקטאָר פֿונעם מוזיי דורך דער קולטור־דירעקטאָרין פֿון דער הײַנטיקער צענטריסטישער רעגירונג, מאַרטאַ טשענקאָווסקאַ. רעדנדיק צו סטאָלאַן האָט זי דערקלערט: „אין 2019 האָט דער מיניסטער פּיאָטער גלינסקי באַשלאָסן צו איגנאָרירן די רעזולטאַטן פֿונעם קאָנקורס. מע האָט אײַך דעמאָלט, מיט זעקס יאָר צוריק, געדאַרפֿט באַשטימען פֿאַר דעם אַמט. טײַערער פּראָפֿעסאָר, זאָל זײַן מיט מיט מזל!“

סטאָלאַ האָט זי באַדאַנקט און געזאָגט: „די מיסיע פֿונעם מוזיי איז נאָך וויכטיקער הײַנט צוליב די פֿינצטערע כּוחות וואָס פֿאַרקרימען דעם אָנדענק פֿון דער פּויליש־ייִדישער פֿאַרגאַנגענהייט.“

צו זען דעם אַרטיקל אויף ענגליש, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.

To see the article in English, click here.

 

The post Tidbits: The first director of the Polin Museum is back appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News