Uncategorized
In Mel Brooks’ ‘History of the World Part II,’ Jewish jokes reign from BCE to the Beatles
(JTA) — In a scene that will soon stream on Hulu, a group of early Christian bishops gathers to set a promotion strategy for their newish religion — to “make the Bible an international blockbuster,” as one puts it.
But the plot is unclear: “Who are the bad guys in this story?” asks one. He and his fellow clerics consider two options: the Jews and the Romans.
“Let’s make them the Jews, for sure,” says a bishop. “They run everything,” says another.
And thus the First Council of Nicaea, a gathering in 325 C.E. that is considered the birth of Christian antisemitism, gets the Mel Brooks treatment in “History of the World Part II,” the long-awaited sequel to the classic Mel Brooks film that revolves around Jewish history — and skewers it. The new four-part series even has a Jewish premiere date — March 6, the eve of the merrymaking holiday of Purim.
As with the 1981 original — written, directed and produced by Brooks, who also stars — the new series is littered with Jewish subject matter, even in the sketches that aren’t about Jews. And although comedy mores have changed in the past four decades, the series aims to retain Brooks’ signature combination of sharp parody, vaudevillian vulgarity and Borscht Belt antics.
“We really tried to embrace what we loved about [Brooks’] work and apply that to the work that we were doing, whether that was the themes of funny character names, or breaking the fourth wall or anachronisms or certain kinds of playful blocking,” director Alice Mathias told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The kind of comedy work that I was doing up until this point was a touch more restrained and not quite as slapstick in places. So it was really fun to get a little sillier.”
And the creators aren’t concerned about a show with repeated send-ups of Jewish history at a time of rising antisemitism.
“Saying ‘the Jews are the bad guys’ is only funny because you’re making fun of the people saying it,” said showrunner David Stassen. “You’re punching up, you’re making fun of the bishops in power. That was the intent.”
Pictured from left to right: Nick Kroll, Wanda Sykes, Mel Brooks, Ike Barinholtz, and David Stassen at the Los Angeles premiere of History of the World Part II. (Tommaso Boddi via Getty Images)
Part of the series’ Jewishness is thanks to Nick Kroll, the Jewish comedian who had been interested in creating “History of the World Part II” for a very long time and “nudzhed” Brooks to agree, Stassen told JTA, using the Yiddish word for pester. Kroll is the co-creator of the critically acclaimed cartoon “Big Mouth,” which was largely based on his experience attending the Solomon Schechter School of Westchester. He also grew up in a Conservative, kosher-keeping household.
Kroll joins Brooks, 97, Wanda Sykes, Ike Barinholtz and David Stassen as a writer and executive producer, with Mathias of Netflix’s absurdist sketch series “I Think You Should Leave” as director.
“It wasn’t a matter of, is this the right time for this?” Stassen told JTA. “It was just like, how do we honor Mel? How do we do a show that’s different than current sketch shows, that is in Mel’s tone?”
“History of the World Part I” spoofs the epic films of the mid-20th century, with sketches including a musical number take on the Spanish Inquisition; an alternate history of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments; and cavemen discovering music. The new series puts a 21st century spin on that idea, reminiscent of Comedy Central’s “Drunk History” (and featuring many of the same cast members, including Joe Lo Truglio, who plays one of the bishops at Nicaea) with hints of the Netflix series “I Think You Should Leave.”
Audiences will see comedic sendups of historical events including Black congresswoman Shirley Chisholm’s historic run for president; Marco Polo’s arrival at the palace of Kublai Khan in China; the Russian Revolution; and the signing of the Oslo Accords, the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Schmuck Mudman (Nick Kroll), Fanny (Pamela Adlon), and Joshy (Charles Melton) discuss leaving the shtetl as the Russian Revolution breaks out. (Courtesy of Hulu)
Just a few of the Jewish jokes: Jason Alexander makes an appearance as a notary-slash-mohel who brings the wrong bag, full of his ritual tools, to the official signing of the Confederate Army’s surrender at the end of the Civil War.
“Useless. Unless somebody wants to take a little off the top,” Alexander’s character says, gesturing to his tools.
The story of Jesus Christ gets parodied via multiple genres and is arguably one of the most Jewish recurring sketches of the whole series. In a “Curb Your Enthusiasm”-inspired sketch in the second episode, Judas (Kroll) and Luke (JB Smoove) realize that Jesus (Jay Ellis) has abandoned keeping kosher when they catch him publicly eating a bacon cheeseburger. A subsequent sketch spoofs the documentary “The Beatles: Get Back,” in which fans of the apostles eat matzah on sticks outside of the Apples & Honey recording studio.
A fan of the apostles (Quinta Brunson) stands outside of Apples and Honey Studios. (Courtesy of Hulu)
And a recurring sketch focusing on the Russian Revolution and parodying parts of “Fiddler on the Roof” features a literal mud pie salesman named “Schmuck Mudman” who lives in an Eastern European shtetl. Mudman sells his wares via Putz Mates, a Yiddish play on the food delivery app PostMates. After moving from the village to Moscow, Mudman, played by Kroll, is surprised to find a meeting of the Mensheviks, the opposition to the Communist Bolshevik party, in his apartment.
“Your misery looks familiar to me. Are we from the same shtetl?” Mudman asks one of the Mensheviks in a depressing round of early 20th century Jewish geography.
“No. I get this all the time,” the man responds. “But I’m a miserable city Jew.”
—
The post In Mel Brooks’ ‘History of the World Part II,’ Jewish jokes reign from BCE to the Beatles appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.