Uncategorized
How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage
(JTA) — When Judy Blume’s young adult novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” appeared in 1970, intermarried families were a small segment of the American Jewish population. Perhaps 17% of Jews were married to someone who wasn’t Jewish; today, 42% of married Jews have a spouse who is not Jewish, and in the past decade, 61% of Jews married non-Jewish partners.
Through the 1960s, middle-grade and young adult fiction rarely acknowledged the existence of these families, reflecting and reinforcing their outsider status. Today it is routine for authors to address the reality of inter-religious and culturally mixed families, portraying them with insight and compassion. (See “Not Your All-American Girl” by Wendy Wan-Long Shang and Madelyn Rosenberg, “Becoming Brianna” by Terri Libenson and “The Whole Story of Half a Girl” by Veera Hiranandani.)
This change was made possible partly by Blume’s story of sixth-grader Margaret Simon and her one-sided conversations with God.
Blume’s status as a pioneer in young adult literature is usually associated with her honest approach to the emotional, physical and sexual milestones of growing up, with her works still attracting readers and still finding an honored place on lists of banned books. That legacy is being celebrated in April with a new documentary, Amazon Prime Video’s “Judy Blume Forever,” and a theatrical release by Lionsgate of a feature film version of “Are You There God?”
Yet her treatment of contested identity in intermarried families is as revolutionary as her openness about bras, menstruation and sexual feelings. Actors Lena Dunham and Molly Ringwald, comedian Samantha Bee and many authors, including Raina Telgemeier, Tayari Jones and Gary Shteyngart, have cited Blume’s influence on both their lives and their work. Book lists for intermarried families frequently list the novel as a resource.
Margaret Simon is 11 years old at the start of “Are You There God?” Her Jewish dad and Christian mom have pointedly ignored the possibility that their daughter might have questions about her identity. Along with other issues of teen angst, she feels compelled to decide if she is Jewish, Christian or neither. Without any guidance, the last alternative leaves her in a frightening void. As she pointedly asks God, in her ongoing series of questions for Him, “I can’t go on being nothing forever, can I?”
Margaret’s parents, Barbara Hutchins and Herb Simon, fell in love and defied their respective parents by marrying out of their faiths. They assure Margaret that she has no religion, but can choose one when she is older, oblivious to the fact that this solution seems more of a burden than a promise of future freedom. Their avoidance of any serious engagement with either religion or culture renders any possible choice unlikely.
Blume situates Margaret’s search within the specific landscape of post-World War II America. When the Simons decide to leave their Upper West Side home in New York City and move to suburban New Jersey, their decision suggests a coded reference to their religious status. Long Island is “too social,” an implied euphemism for “too Jewish.” Living there might have made it harder for their relatively unusual situation to be discreetly ignored. On the other hand, the more affluent Westchester and Connecticut are “too expensive” and “too inconvenient.” Farbrook, New Jersey has enough Jews for it to feel right for Herb, but not so many as to make their mixed family stand out.
Margaret also suspects that her parents’ are determined to put distance between the Simons and Sylvia, her paternal grandmother, who lives in New York City. This gregarious woman shows up at their new home unannounced and toting deli foods, making it clear that Margaret’s one unambiguous connection to Judaism is not going to disappear. While Barbara’s parents utterly rejected her when she married a Jew, Sylvia has pragmatically decided to accept what she cannot change. In the postwar era, more Jews began to abandon or minimize religious practice, while still maintaining ethnically distinct customs. Like holiday observance or synagogue attendance, ethnic Jewish culture is also absent from the Simon home. Sylvia’s Jewish food, her frequent trips to Florida, even her combination of sarcasm and smothering warmth, provide Margaret with markers of the tradition her parents have eschewed.
Still, when Sylvia repeatedly asks Margaret if her (nonexistent) boyfriends are Jewish, the young girl is baffled. Given her own lack of consciousness of herself as Jewish, why would Margaret care?
Rachel McAdams and Abby Ryder Fortson in the forthcoming film adaptation of “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” (Dana Hawley/Lionsgate © 2022)
In the larger world of Farbrook, Margaret’s new friends seem to have more secure identities, conveniently defined by membership either in the “Y” (Young Men’s Christian Association) or the Jewish Community Center. Perfunctory attendance at Hebrew school until after one’s bar mitzvah is the furthest extent of her peers’ Jewishness. Margaret explains that her parents are “nothing” and that, prior to their marriage, they were Jewish and Christian, as if those identities could be cast off like an article of clothing. When Mr. Benedict, her enthusiastic young teacher, distributes a questionnaire, Margaret completes the prompt “I hate” with “religious holidays.” He attempts to draw her out about this troubling answer, and she scornfully observes that her teacher acted as if “he had uncovered some deep, dark mystery.”
On one level, he has. Her mother’s blandly universal definition of God as a “nice idea,” who “belongs to everybody,” is clearly a denial of the fractures in her family members’ lives.
Blume also captures the essence of mid-century non-Orthodox Judaism as comfortably accessible, yet also somewhat empty. On a visit to Grandma Sylvia’s elegant temple, the atmosphere is quietly decorous, the sanctuary filled with well-appointed congregants and beautifully arranged flowers. Sylvia’s rabbi greets Margaret with an enthusiastic “Good Yom Tov,” which he translates as “Happy New Year,” although it is actually a generic holiday greeting.
When Margaret later visits Presbyterian and Methodist churches, she notes the remarkable similarity among all three experiences.
The novel’s one incident of specific religious practice involves Margaret’s brief, unfinished confession in a classmate’s Catholic church. Having participated in bullying, Margaret tries to assuage her guilt through a ritual alien to both her father’s Judaism and her mother’s Protestant Christianity. She even momentarily confuses the priest with the silent God of her conversations. Nothing could be further from her parents’ rejection of religion, or from Grandma Sylvia’s loving assurance to Margaret that “I knew you were a Jewish girl at heart.”
When Margaret’s Christian grandparents decide to resume contact, the suppressed anger in the Simon home finally erupts. Herb is furious, and accuses his in-laws of only wanting to meet Margaret “to make sure she doesn’t have horns!” — a caustic reference to a persistent antisemitic myth. Blume had subtly foreshadowed this disruption of the status quo in a parallel event at school. When a Jewish student, backed by his parents, refuses to sing Christmas carols, the implicit agreement of the town’s Jews to quietly conform is broken. A Christian girl, in what seems an act of retaliation, then refuses to sing Hanukkah songs. These acts of resistance reinforce Margaret’s marginal status. Her intermarried family represents neither conformity with postwar norms nor an assertion of Jewish pride.
Blume appears to tip the scales in her portrayal of Mary and Paul Hutchins, Margaret’s maternal grandparents. Entirely unlikeable, simultaneously pushy and cold, they insist that the granddaughter they had never acknowledged is Christian. After their failed visit, Grandma Sylvia returns, along with her sweet and obviously Jewish new boyfriend, Mr. Binamin (“rhymes with cinnamon”). Readers rooting for the triumph of Margaret’s Jewish roots may breathe a sigh of relief here, but hope for a satisfying ending is illusory. Margaret’s search for a stable sense of self is still unfinished, and will not be satisfied by choosing membership in either the Y or the JCC.
For young readers, the novel’s discussion of religious identity proved as life-changing as its honest portrayal of puberty and menstruation. “I related to that kind of conflict of religion,” the comedian Chelsea Handler, who grew up in a mixed Jewish-Mormon home, told Blume in 2020. “At that time, I just found out my mom was Mormon, on top of thinking she was Jewish, and your books were such a reprieve for me and such a joy.”
More than 50 years ago, Judy Blume tackled a difficult subject, about both changing demographics and the search for authenticity in American Jewish life. Margaret’s conclusion that “twelve is very late to learn” about the essence of who you are still poses a challenge, while her persistent search for a meaningful identity offers a degree of optimism.
—
The post How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Qatar, Turkey Try to Circumvent Hamas Disarmament as Terror Group Escalates Crackdown in Gaza
Palestinians walk past the rubble of destroyed buildings, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Jabalia, northern Gaza Strip, November 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
As the United States pushes for the second phase of President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire to begin, Israel is warning that Qatar and Turkey are trying to shield Hamas from disarmament as the Palestinian terrorist group seeks to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
Qatar and Turkey have proposed alternatives to a central provision of Trump’s peace plan, according to Israeli media reports. Rather than requiring Hamas to disarm, Qatari and Turkish officials have pushed for the Islamist group either to hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority or place them in secure storage under international oversight.
As part of this plan, Qatar and Turkey are reportedly advocating a two‑year grace period during which Hamas could legally retain its weapons.
However, Israeli officials have rejected these options as unacceptable, arguing they would allow the terrorist group to maintain its influence in Gaza, which Hamas has ruled for nearly two decades.
Israel has made clear it will allow Hamas just a few months to give up its weapons, warning it will act unilaterally if the group is not disarmed promptly.
Turkey and Qatar, both longtime backers of Hamas, have been trying to expand their roles in Gaza’s post-war reconstruction, which experts have warned could potentially strengthen Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure.
Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any Turkish or Qatari involvement in post-war Gaza.
The first stage of Trump’s peace plan, which took effect in October, included Hamas releasing all the remaining hostages, both living and deceased, who were kidnapped by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists during their Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. In exchange, Israel released thousands of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, including many convicted terrorists serving life sentences, and partially withdrew its military forces in Gaza to a newly drawn “Yellow Line,” roughly dividing the enclave between east and west.
Currently, the Israeli military controls 53 percent of Gaza’s territory, and Hamas has moved to reestablish control over the other 47 percent. However, the vast majority of the Gazan population is located in the Hamas-controlled half, where the Islamist group has been imposing a brutal crackdown.
The second stage of the US plan is supposed to install an interim administrative authority — a so-called “technocratic government” — deploy an International Stabilization Force — a multinational force meant to take over security in Gaza — and begin the demilitarization of Hamas.
As the international community works to implement phase two of the ceasefire deal, Qatar and Turkey are now insisting that Israel must withdraw from Gaza before Hamas can disarm — a demand Jerusalem vehemently opposes, warning it would give the terrorist group time to reassert full control over its half of Gaza and remove any incentive to disarm later on.
On Saturday, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said the international community has only achieved a “pause” in fighting, but not a full ceasefire, stressing that Israel would need to withdraw from the entire enclave to make it possible.
“A ceasefire cannot be completed unless there is a full withdrawal of the Israeli forces, there is stability back in Gaza [and] people can go in and out, which is not the case today,” Al Thani said during a press conference.
The Qatari leader also said that the mediating countries, including Turkey, Egypt, and the US, are “getting together in order to force the way forward for the next phase.”
However, Al Thani emphasized Qatar considers phase two to be “temporary,” arguing that addressing the immediate situation in Gaza alone is insufficient without tackling what he described as the underlying causes of the conflict.
“This conflict is not only about Gaza, but also the West Bank. It’s about the rights of the Palestinians for their state,” he said. “We are hoping that we can work together with the US administration to achieve this vision.”
According to the ceasefire plan, the Israeli army is required to withdraw further as the disarmament process unfolds. However, Israel has made clear that it will not pull back until Hamas disarms and other conditions are met.
“We will not allow Hamas to reestablish itself. We have operational control over extensive parts of the Gaza Strip, and we will remain on those defense lines,” Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on Sunday. “The Yellow Line is a new border line, serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity.”
Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said a credible Palestinian civil administration and a vetted, trained police force should be established before Hamas can disarm.
In a press conference, Fidan emphasized that without these conditions, expecting Hamas to disarm is neither “realistic nor doable.”
However, Hamas continues to reject full disarmament, saying the group is only open to storing or freezing its weapons in order to preserve “the Palestinians’ ability to defend themselves.”
“Hamas is willing to discuss these ideas in the context of a ceasefire or long-term truce within a political process that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” senior Hamas official Basem Naim said in a statement.
In Gaza, Hamas’s brutal crackdown has continued to escalate dramatically as the terrorist group moves to reassert control over the enclave and consolidate its weakened position.
Following the death of Yasser Abu Shabab, the leader of an armed anti-Hamas Palestinian faction, last week, Hamas has given militants a 10-day ultimatum to surrender in exchange for promises of amnesty, according to Israel’s Channel 12 and reports on social media.
Abu Shabab, a Bedouin tribal leader based in Israeli-held Rafah in southern Gaza, had led one of the most prominent of several small anti-Hamas groups that emerged in the enclave during the war that began more than two years ago.
He died last week while mediating an internal dispute between families and groups within the militia, dealing a setback to Israeli efforts to support Gazan clans against the ruling Islamist group.
Since the ceasefire took effect two months ago, Hamas has targeted Palestinians who it labeled as “lawbreakers and collaborators with Israel,” sparking widespread clashes and violence as the group moves to seize weapons and eliminate any opposition.
Social media videos widely circulated online show Hamas members brutally beating Palestinians and carrying out public executions of alleged collaborators and rival militia members.
Uncategorized
Ted Cruz Blasts Tucker Carlson for Plan to Buy Home in Qatar, Conduct at Doha Forum
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The ongoing foreign policy feud between US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and anti-Israel podcaster Tucker Carlson continued over the weekend, with the legislator responding bluntly to the former Fox News host’s conduct and declarations at the Doha Forum in Qatar.
In reply to Carlson’s announcement on Sunday that he intended to purchase a home in Doha and reports of anti-Israel sentiments at the event sponsored by the country’s ruling monarchy, Cruz asked, “I thought fellatio was illegal in Qatar?”
Carlson had a sit-down discussion with Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani during the forum, during which the far-right media provocateur referenced widespread speculation that he was receiving Qatari money. Analysts have revealed in recent reports that Qatar, a longtime supporter of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s global network more broadly, has spent tens of billions of dollars to influence US policy making and public opinion in Doha’s favor.
“I have been criticized as being a tool of Qatar, and I just want to say – which you already know – which is I have never taken anything from your country and don’t plan to,” Carlson said over the weekend. “I am, however, tomorrow buying a place in Qatar. I like the city; I think it’s beautiful. But also want to make a statement that I’m an American and a free man and I’ll be wherever I want to be. I have not taken any money from Qatar, but I have now given money to Qatar.”
Carlson later confirmed his views of Qatar to the Doha News, saying that “I like it here a lot.” He previously told his fellow far-right podcaster Steve Bannon that “they know I’m not working for Qatar.”
Cruz also responded to an X post by Carlson’s longtime business partner Neil Patel which had tagged him and featured the podcaster extending a middle finger with the text, “Greetings from the booodthirsty, terror-supporting slave state of Qatar.”
The senator affirmed the sarcastic taunt, writing, “Fact check: true.”
Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, also a frequent critic of Carlson who has previously deployed the epithet “Qatarlson,” wrote on Monday that “Neil Patel was top policy adviser to Dick Cheney. Tucker Carlson worked for Bill Kristol. Now they’re both monarchists — Qatar first lapdogs for a terrorist dictatorship.”
The Al Thani family monarchy has run Qatar since the 1800s and has long supported the Muslim Brotherhood. The country has provided the Hamas-run government in Gaza with an estimated $1.8 billion and allows the terrorist group to host an office in Doha.
The US State Department has affirmed severe human rights abuses in Qatar, including “enforced disappearance; arbitrary arrest; political prisoners; serious restrictions on free expression, including the existence of criminal libel laws; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully in free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; extensive gender-based violence; existence of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct, which were not systematically enforced; and the prohibition of independent trade unions and significant or systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association.”
US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) defended Carlson from Cruz’s criticism.
“Canadian born Zionist Texas Senator Ted Cruz has lost his mind over Tucker Carlson,” Greene wrote Sunday on X. “You would think a United States Senator would be gravely concerned about affordability for Americans, the looming healthcare crisis, and actually passing appropriations with another government funding deadline coming end of January. But instead he’s gone mad with Tucker living rent free in his head.”
On Monday, Greene shared graphics on X critical of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) support for President Donald Trump, writing, “I AM AMERICA FIRST. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -MTG.” One green image of a smiling, colorful Greene from “TrackAIPAC” affirms $0 in donations. This juxtaposes with a red image of a black and white, scowling Trump who has allegedly received over $230 million.
AIPAC, a prominent American lobbying group, seeks to foster bipartisan support for a strong US-Israel alliance.
In a Sunday interview with “60 Minutes,” Greene defended her decision not to vote for a measure condemning antisemitism, saying, “We don’t have to get on our knees and say it over and over again.”
Mark Dubowitz, CEO at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, reflected on Carlson’s remarks in Doha by recalling the man’s father: “Watching Tucker in Doha, I think of Ambassador Richard W. Carlson — my former @FDD colleague and mentor. A true American patriot. A steadfast friend of Israel and the Jewish people. A fearless opponent of Islamists and Communists. May his memory be a blessing.”
While many observers both within and outside the American political right have expressed concerns about increases in antisemitic sentiment, Vice President JD Vance pushed back on the claim over the weekend.
“I think it’s kind of slanderous to say that the Republican Party, the conservative movement, is extremely antisemitic,” he said. “Do I think the Republican Party is substantially more antisemitic than it was 10 or 15 years ago? Absolutely not.”
Vance, who employs one of Carlson’s sons in his office and is reportedly friends with the podcaster, added, “I just don’t see the simmering antisemitism that’s exploding that some people claim.”
Uncategorized
French Nanny Faces Trial for Poisoning Jewish Family in Case Stirring Outrage Amid Rising Antisemitic Attacks
Sign reading “+1000% of Antisemitic Acts: These Are Not Just Numbers” during a march against antisemitism, in Lyon, France, June 25, 2024. Photo: Romain Costaseca / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
An Algerian woman residing illegally in France is set to stand trial on Tuesday on antisemitism-aggravated charges after admitting to poisoning the food of the Jewish family that employed her as a nanny, in a case that has intensified public outrage amid a surge of antisemitic attacks across the country.
The 42-year-old nanny, who has worked as a live-in caregiver for a family with three children aged two, five, and seven since November 2023, will now appear at the criminal court in Nanterre, just west of Paris, accused of poisoning them by contaminating their food and drinks with toxic substances, according to French media.
She is expected to face multiple charges, including “administering a harmful substance that caused more than eight days of incapacity for racial or religious reasons.”
The nanny, who has been living in France in violation of a deportation order issued in February 2024, is currently in custody and faces additional charges for presenting her employers with a forged Belgian identity document.
The shocking incident, first reported by Le Parisien, in January last year occurred just two months after the caregiver was hired, when the mother discovered cleaning products in the wine she drank and suffered severe eye pain from using makeup remover that had been contaminated with a toxic substance, prompting her to call the police.
After a series of forensic tests, investigators detected polyethylene glycol — a chemical commonly used in industrial and pharmaceutical products — along with other toxic substances in the food consumed by the family and their three children.
According to court documents, these chemicals were described as “harmful, even corrosive, and capable of causing serious injuries to the digestive tract.”
When the mother explained that only her family and the nanny had access to the house, she was promptly taken into police custody for questioning.
Even though she initially denied the charges against her, the nanny later confessed to police that she had poured a soapy lotion into the family’s food as a warning because “they were disrespecting her.”
“They have money and power, so I should never have worked for a Jewish woman — it only brought me trouble,” the nanny told the police. “I knew I could hurt them, but not enough to kill them.”
According to her lawyer, Solange Marel, the nanny has withdrawn her confession, maintaining that there is no proof of an antisemitic motive and that jealousy and a perceived financial grievance were the primary factors.
She also emphasized that the substances were found only in the parents’ drinks, not the children’s.
Yonathan Arfi, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) — the main representative body of French Jews — is set to appear before the court on Tuesday as a witness for the family.
He described the case as “revealing of structural violence, whose singular severity should neither be minimized nor concealed.”