RSS
Nobody Wants This, Except the Audience — A Jewish Perspective on Netflix’s Latest Hit
Small toy figures are seen in front of displayed Netflix logo in this illustration taken March 19, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration.
Netflix’s new series, Nobody Wants This, has captured global attention with its unique premise: a romance between Rabbi Noah Rocklov (Adam Brody) and Joanne (Kristen Bell), an agnostic sex podcast host. Created by Erin Foster, herself a Jewish convert, the show follows their unlikely connection despite their vastly different backgrounds.
The show’s popularity transcends cultural boundaries, ranking first on Netflix in many Muslim countries including Lebanon (currently at war with Israel), Turkey, and the UAE. It holds strong positions in Bahrain (2nd), Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, as well as Qatar (3rd), Morocco (4th), and Saudi Arabia and Oman (5th). It also tops charts in Israel, the United States, Canada, Iceland, Nigeria, Ukraine, Germany, and numerous other countries.
While some critics have suggested that the show contains antisemitic elements, particularly in its portrayal of Jewish women, this criticism doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Rabbi Lexi Erdheim, a Reform Rabbi at Temple Beth El in Charlotte, NC, acknowledges some “tired tropes,” but maintains that “the depictions are not egregious enough that it would make me turn off the show. There is enough humanization of Jewish characters, and the show grapples with questions and shares a lot of richness about Judaism that I can see past the tropes.”
Screen Rant writer Dani Kessle Odom points out that even Esther (Jackie Thon), who the show’s writers demonize as the main antagonist to Joanne, is shown as a supportive wife, caring mother, and loyal friend, demonstrating the show’s nuanced character portrayal of even the most antagonistic of the Jewish women.
The show’s relationship with Judaism is notably well-informed, with former Wilshire Boulevard Temple Senior Rabbi Steve Leder serving as rabbinical consultant. The series deliberately maintains ambiguity about Noah’s specific Jewish denomination, featuring Conservative prayer books in the Temple, while showing practices more aligned with Reform Judaism.
The show portrays several concepts that are central to Judaism and Jewish practice, and it does so in a touching and positive manner, making it more an expression of philosemitism than antisemitism.
Noah is described as being a truly good person. We see time and again, that Noah is kind, considerate, and endearing, often caring about others far more than himself, which makes him the positive foil to the self-centered tropes of the majority of the other characters (both Jewish and non-Jewish alike). To him, the position of a community Rabbi, regardless of which denomination of Judaism he comes from, means serving the community and working to help others achieve their own spiritual goals and guide them to a more fulfilled life.
As the show progresses and Noah gets caught up in his own ambition and dream to become the head rabbi of his congregation, It is surprisingly Joanne, his non-Jewish love interest, who teaches him about being honest with one’s self as well as others. This becomes a turning point, where Noah recognizes that she can help him become a better rabbi, a better person, and help people, something which he views as one of the highest ideals and which ultimately brings him closer to her.
The interfaith issue:
Interfaith marriage in Judaism carries varying degrees of taboo, with Orthodox communities potentially shunning or excommunicating those who intermarry, sometimes extending consequences to their families. While Conservative Judaism is less strict, most of its rabbis won’t perform interfaith ceremonies. Reform and Reconstructionist movements are more lenient, though traditionally their rabbis have avoided officiating interfaith marriages. A significant shift occurred when the Reform rabbinical school Hebrew Union College announced in June 2024 that rabbinical students in interfaith relationships could study for ordination, provided they commit to maintaining Jewish households.
As Rabbi Erdheim noted, “If one spouse is a rabbi then you would expect the household to be Jewish. If you’ve chosen to dedicate your personal and professional life to leading the Jewish people, then you would have a Jewish home.” However, clergy are still held to stricter standards than congregants, and in many communities, it is still taboo for a rabbi to be in an interfaith relationship — a central tension that drives the show’s plot.
The pork issue:
Orthodox Jews strictly avoid pork as non-kosher. For further elucidation on this please see this article: Reform Jews generally disregard kosher laws — except for the clergy. Rabbi Erdheim added, “It’s a complex question and the Reform community runs the gamut of kashrut observance from observing the laws, to not observing them.”
The wine issue:
In the first episode, Noah insists on opening Joanne’s wine bottle despite her offers to help — a scene that appears to showcase his chivalry but inadvertently touches on a deeper Jewish law. Orthodox Jews won’t drink uncooked wine touched or poured by non-Jews. This is a 1,800-year-old rule stemming from concerns about wine used in idol worship called [Stam Yainam]. Though Joanne is merely agnostic, Noah deftly navigates the potentially awkward moment with self-deprecating charm. As Rabbi Erdheim notes, while Reform rabbis are aware of this law, most don’t observe it: “I would be shocked to encounter a Reform rabbi who has a problem if a non-Jew poured them wine nowadays.”
Wrestling with God:
Again in the first episode, Noah tells Joanne that “baked into the Jewish experience is the concept of wrestling with what God is or isn’t and not knowing.” This is a long-standing concept in Judaism dating back to the term Israel itself, which comes from Genesis 32:28, where an Angel gives Jacob the name Yisrael because he struggled [sarita] with God [‘elohim] and with humans and has prevailed.” Since then, Jews have always struggled with the concept of what God is or isn’t and how best to worship God leading to a multiplicity of views, understandings, arguments, and acceptance of living in a state of uncertainty.
Shabbat Candles:
The concept of lighting candles at the beginning of Shabbat can be dated back to the end of the Second Temple. In Episode 5, Noah explains to Joanne that there are different interpretations of the two-candle custom. While commonly representing either the dual commandments “keep” (Shamor) and “remember” (Zachor) the Shabbat, or representing both spouses, Noah shares a lesser-known meaning: the candles symbolize the two destroyed Temples, suggesting Shabbat’s eternal nature transcends physical structures. This interpretation, cited by Rabbi Efraim Palvanov, traces back to the 13th-century Baal Haturim (Rabbi Jacob Ben Asher), who connects the Shabbat candles to the Temples’ eternal light (Ner Hatamid) and that continuing to light Shabbat candles carries on the concept of the eternal light from the Temples. Interestingly enough, this is something that I, a practicing Jew my entire life, was unaware of and only learned after investigating the statement that Noah made in the show.
Judaism is a unified nuanced religion
Judaism is a nuanced religion, with a lot of people who are uninformed about those nuances, how many streams of Judaism there are, and how each one tries to keep the beauty of the religion in the modern world. Even in Orthodoxy, there are hundreds of different styles and permutations of customs, communities, and identifying factors. What unifies us, is that we all strive to find the value of our voice and purpose within the religion, to continue to pass on the gifts and wisdom that we were given in our heritage, and use them to build a better world for our children and be a light unto the nations. There are also some external aspects that unify us, among them in a negative context is antisemitism, which affects all Jews regardless of their belief or with which segment of Judaism they identify.
It is certainly a struggle, and often the message of Jewish wisdom gets diluted, confused, or scorned by those we wish would receive it. Yet the struggle continues. In the words of one of my former mentors Rabbi Nathan Lopez Cardozo, the concept of Jewish faith is to struggle with Judaism and with God, and learn to live with that continuous struggle while constantly striving to improve upon the world.
I believe that this is a concept that the show embodies as well, in its context, while sharing some of the beauty of Jewish culture, heritage, wisdom, and messages to the world, so that we can continue to engage with each other, be kind and honest people, and continue to grow while helping others around us grow and be better as well. This is indeed a far cry from being antisemitic, which some have erroneously claimed the show to be.
Raphael Poch is a religious Orthodox Jewish husband and father. He works as the Senior Manager of PR for Aish and moonlights as a journalist, improviser, and theater aficionado. He currently lives with his family in Efrat, Israel.
The post Nobody Wants This, Except the Audience — A Jewish Perspective on Netflix’s Latest Hit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar attends a press conference with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (not pictured) in Berlin, Germany, June 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Christian Mang
Israel is interested in establishing formal diplomatic relations with long-standing adversaries Syria and Lebanon, but the status of the Golan Heights is non-negotiable, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said on Monday.
Israeli leaders argue that with its rival Iran weakened by this month’s 12-day war, other countries in the region have an opportunity to forge ties with Israel.
The Middle East has been upended by nearly two years of war in Gaza, during which Israel also carried out airstrikes and ground operations in Lebanon targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah, and by the overthrow of former Syrian leader and Iran ally Bashar al-Assad.
In 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco became the first Arab states to establish ties with Israel since Jordan in 1994 and Egypt in 1979. The normalization agreements with Israel were deeply unpopular in the Arab world.
“We have an interest in adding countries such as Syria and Lebanon, our neighbors, to the circle of peace and normalization, while safeguarding Israel‘s essential and security interests,” Saar said at a press conference in Jerusalem.
“The Golan will remain part of the State of Israel,” he said.
Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing the territory from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. While much of the international community regards the Golan as occupied Syrian land, US President Donald Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over it during his first term in office.
Following Assad’s ousting, Israeli forces moved further into Syrian territory.
A senior Syrian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Syria would never give up the Golan Heights, describing it as an integral part of Syrian territory.
The official also said that normalization efforts with Israel must be part of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and not carried out through a separate track.
A spokesperson for Syria‘s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The 2002 initiative proposed Arab normalization with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from territories including the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza. It also called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Throughout the war in Gaza, regional power Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that establishing ties with Israel was conditional on the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Israel‘s Saar said it was “not constructive” for other states to condition normalization on Palestinian statehood.
“Our view is that a Palestinian state will threaten the security of the State of Israel,” he said.
In May, Reuters reported that Israel and Syria‘s new Islamist rulers had established direct contact and held face-to-face meetings aimed at de-escalating tensions and preventing renewed conflict along their shared border.
The same month, US President Donald Trump announced the US would lift sanctions on Syria and met Syria‘s new president, urging him to normalize ties with Israel.
The post Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Threading Liberty: A Family’s Flight Toward American Freedom
The House of Representatives Building and the East Portico of the US Capitol. Photo: Flickr.
Inside a small toy store in Kiev, my grandmother scanned the faces of 10 identical teddy bears. They all looked back at her with the same blank stare — their beckoning beaded eyes giving the illusion of a choice. Sighing, she picked the very last one on the shelf, wishing there were other options, and bought it for my mother. This sense of having no other choice was a familiar feeling rooted in her day-to-day life, along with the lives of the rest of my family in the Soviet Union.
My grandfather, a student with perfect grades and the hopes of becoming an electrical engineer, had to settle for a lesser school in a small town because the top universities that specialized in engineering rejected him for being Jewish.
My grandparents realized that the life they wanted to live — and the one they wanted their children to have — could not exist in the Soviet Union, so they decided to immigrate to America. Flying across the Atlantic Ocean with her family, my mother tightly clutched the teddy bear my grandmother had given her for her birthday. She gazed out the window of the airplane as it touched down in the land of new beginnings.
Starting this new life towards the end of her high school years, my mother started applying to American universities. There were so many options to choose from, yet there were still so many obstacles to overcome. My mother had to learn English from scratch, and competed with students who grew up in the American education system in order to get one of the limited spots in top colleges. As a result of her hard work and perseverance, she got into and attended a prestigious university, which served as a foundation for building her new life. This would never have been possible if she had stayed in the Soviet Union, as her social status would have always served as a barrier for this kind of opportunity.
My mother, my father, and I now live in a comfortable home in the suburbs of New Jersey. In my bedroom sits the very same teddy bear that made the journey to the United States with my mother. Next to it sit a stuffed frog, a jaguar, and so many other stuffed animals that it would be enough to make an entire zoo. A Hebrew song plays in the background while I sit on my bed and scroll through a list of potential colleges on my computer.
The juxtaposition of how little choice my family had in the Soviet Union — and the seemingly endless amount of possibilities I now have in America — is a perfect example of what the Founding Fathers fought for when they described the “unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Thanks to both the work of America’s founding generations, and my family’s, I now live in a country where opportunities seem limitless, and where the choice is all mine to make.
I am very grateful, and I’m very excited for the future.
Mariella Favel is a high school student in Northern NJ. She is passionate about advocacy and exploring her family’s Russian-speaking Jewish identity.
The post Threading Liberty: A Family’s Flight Toward American Freedom first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The US Attack on Iran Was Legal
A satellite image shows airstrike craters over the underground centrifuge halls of the Natanz Enrichment Facility, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Natanz County, Iran, June 22, 2025. Photo: Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS
After June 21, when the US bombed critical nuclear sites in Iran, some members of Congress called the mission illegal. It appears the hostilities have ended for now. But the legality of “Operation Midnight Hammer” is still debated.
The question boils down to three issues: Was the US entitled under international law to enter the war? Did President Trump have authority under US law to order the use of military force? And did the undertaking comply with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirement to protect nuclear facilities?
When a US ally is subject to an armed attack or “imminent” armed attack, the US may lawfully assist the ally’s defense. The authority for the intervention is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which guarantees “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.” The multinational military incursions in Kuwait in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001 were considered valid acts of collective self-defense.
Israel suffered two forms of Iranian armed attack. Iran orchestrated armed attacks on Israelis for decades through terrorist proxy groups based in territories surrounding Israel. And Iran directly attacked Israel with two waves of missiles and drones in 2024. Meanwhile, Iran posed an imminent threat of attack because it was becoming a nuclear threshold state while obsessively threatening to annihilate Israel.
Iran observers are unsure how close the regime came to nuclear weaponization. The bomb-making task requires highly enriched uranium, a triggering device, and a delivery vehicle such as a ballistic missile. On April 17, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned that Iran had all the weaponizing “puzzle pieces” and was “not far” from putting them together.
Two months later the IAEA reported that Iran had illegally stockpiled over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough to make several nuclear bombs. Estimates on the remaining time needed to complete the lethal puzzle ranged from months to a year.
Some critics of the American-Israeli collective self-defense welcomed the erasure of Iran’s nuclear facilities but insisted President Trump lacked authority to order the operation without a Congressional declaration of war under Article I of the Constitution. The executive and legislative branches of the US government have long debated the Constitutional power to declare war, and the courts have never resolved the standoff.
A 2016 Department of Justice report formalized the executive branch position on the Constitutional dispute. It defines “war” for the purposes of Article I as a prolonged and substantial military engagement. If there’s no war, there’s no need for a declaration of war. For example, the DOJ opined that a two-week air campaign involving 2,300 combat missions, and an air campaign involving over 600 missiles and precision-guided munitions, did not amount to wars.
Under the DOJ framework, the June 21 assault on Iran’s nuclear program was certainly not a war. The counterproliferation scheme involved just 75 precision guided weapons in a one-day surgical strike. Seven US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers in a “package” of 125 aircraft dropped less than 20 bombs on two nuclear sites, and a US submarine fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at a third nuclear site. The pilots spent only two and a half hours in Iranian airspace.
Members of Congress who raised the Constitutional challenge also claim that the president violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR). Under the WPR, the president may commit armed forces to “hostilities” only if there is a Congressional “declaration of war,” a “specific statutory authorization,” or a “national emergency” created by an attack on the US or its armed forces. Once the military action starts, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours and must stop the action within 60 days unless Congress gives its approval.
Presidents of both parties have repeatedly ignored the three WPR prerequisites to the use of military force. Congressional acquiescence was treated as consent. In the tacit understanding, a president may initiate armed force if it is more surgical than “war” as defined by the DOJ framework and it serves “important national interests.” Consistent with that policy, President Trump described the June 21 action as “a precision strike” that served “vital United States interests.” The vital US interest was the same one emphasized by every US president since 2003, when the IAEA first disclosed Iran’s clandestine plan to develop nuclear weapons. President Trump said the violently anti-Western regime must never acquire a nuclear bomb.
Assuming the US raid in Iran was validly authorized, the only remaining question is whether it was validly implemented. IAEA standards prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities “devoted to peaceful purposes.” Director General Grossi stressed this point in his June 13 Statement on the Situation in Iran, while calling for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict.
Significantly, the Statement did not say Iran’s nuclear facilities were peaceful. Nor did it accuse Israel of violating any IAEA rule. The military nature of Iran’s nuclear facilities made them legally targetable for attack.
It is not legally clear when a US president may wield military might. But based on the written law and past US practice, Operation Midnight Hammer was a valid use of force.
Joel M. Margolis is the Legal Commentator, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, U.S. Affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. His 2021 book, The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War, analyzed the major legal issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously he worked as a telecommunications lawyer in both the public and private sectors.
The post The US Attack on Iran Was Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.