Uncategorized
The battle for Jewish hearts and minds returns to the printed page
(JTA) — The last 20 years haven’t been kind to Jewish journalism, with local weeklies shrinking or folding and even big city papers suspending their print publications and going completely digital. Publishing online has allowed these papers to cut costs and given them the potential for a wide reach — albeit a potential undermined by an increasingly siloed and ideologically polarized market for news and ideas.
Yet still there are those who aren’t giving up on print — at least in small, carefully targeted batches. This spring has seen the launch of two Jewish journals — Masorti, a reboot of the former Conservative Judaism, and Fragments, a product of the left-leaning Jewish human rights group T’ruah. The two magazines join a small but scrappy fraternity of journals aiming to steer the Jewish conversation.
“We’re the people of the book. I think print is having a moment,” said Rabbi Lev Meirowitz Nelson, who as director of Emor, T’ruah’s affiliated think tank, edits Fragments. “In the midst of all the [digital] bombardment people experience, there’s something very grounding about picking up a hard copy and being able to mark it up or carry it with you.”
Of course, Fragments and its more established cousins — from a legacy Modern Orthodox quarterly like Tradition to the interdisciplinary journal Modern Judaism — are all available online, and few print more than 1,000 copies at a time. The goal, the editors and publishers of some of the newer publications told me, is to establish a brand and repair what each one said was a broken communal discussion about Israel, domestic politics and religion.
“I hate what’s become of discourse in Jewish life, which largely goes on on Twitter and other places like that,” said Mark Charendoff. “I think Jews like longform discussions, and we’ve become very, very impatient. I wanted to carve out a space for that long type of writing and reading.”
Charendoff is president of the Maimonides Fund, which publishes Sapir, perhaps the best known of the newish journals. It has a high-profile editor — Bret Stephens, the conservative columnist on the New York Times opinion page — and a penchant for hot-button topics that rally conservatives and enrage liberals. Recent issues of the two-year-old journal have focused on “cancel culture” and a campus environment that most of its contributors consider hostile to conservatism and Jewish life.
“I think society and the Jewish community has become so polarized that people are afraid of articulating controversial views. We need to take a breath and say, ‘You’re not going to be harmed by reading something you disagree with,’” said Charendoff.
T’ruah believes there are plenty of controversial views being aired, but mostly on the right: It has explicitly positioned its new journal as a “necessary alternative to well-funded right-wing Jewish publications.” The news release announcing Fragments did not name those publications but presumably they include Sapir; Mosaic, supported by the right-leaning Tikvah Fund; and Tablet, which is published by Nextbook, Inc., whose president, Mem Bernstein, is on the board of Tikvah and is the widow of its founder. Tablet has published writers from across the political spectrum, but has drawn howls from the left for its frequent articles denouncing “wokeness” and cancel culture and a recent piece questioning the motives of donors who support gender-affirming care for trans people.
(Another journal, The Jewish Review of Books, was initially backed by Tikvah, but recently spun off under its own foundation.)
The premiere issue of Fragments includes essays on concepts of freedom by Laynie Soloman, a director at SVARA, an LGBTQ yeshiva based in Chicago, and Joelle Novey, the director of an interfaith environmental group in the Washington, D.C. area.
Nelson sees two audiences for Fragments: “It’s definitely speaking to the left and offering a deepening of language and of conversation around Jewish sources and Jewish ideas,” he said. “And it’s an effort to speak to the center, which often shares our values and can be spooked by the language they see coming from the right.”
Fittingly for a magazine published by a group formerly known as Rabbis for Human Rights, Fragments leans into Jewish text and religious perspectives. That sets it apart from Jewish Currents, a legacy journal of the Jewish left that, after a relaunch in 2018, now aims for an audience of young, left-wing, mostly secular Jews who, when not anti-Zionist, are deeply critical of Israel. Arielle Angel, editor in chief of Jewish Currents, has said that the magazine has become “a reliable and essential space for challenging, rigorous, surprising work that has shifted the discourse even beyond the American Jewish left.”
The aspiration that the “discourse can be shifted” by gladiators writing for small magazines harkens back to the post-World War II period, a sort of golden age of Jewish thought journals. Jewish and Jewish-adjacent publications like the Menorah Journal, Partisan Review, Commentary and Dissent provided a launching pad for an ideologically fluid cohort of “New York intellectuals” that over the years included Sidney Hook, Hannah Arendt, Lionel Trilling, Saul Bellow, Irving Howe, Delmore Schwartz, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Goodman, Midge Dector, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Alfred Kazin.
Partisan Review was among a spate of magazines that offered a platform for Jewish intellectuals in the years immediately after World War II. (Open Culture)
While writers like these tackled Jewish issues, or general issues through a Jewish lens, many of them influenced the wider national conversation. Angel has said she has drawn inspiration from Commentary: Founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee, the magazine became hugely influential in promoting neoconservative ideas and thinkers in the 1980s and ’90s.
The “golden age” was an explosion of Jewish creativity, and political influence, that would be difficult to replicate today. Benjamin Balint, a former editor at Commentary and author of a history of the magazine, says the flowering of Jewish journals in the mid-20th century was the result of “terrific pent-up pressure among the children of immigrants who were pushed down for so long and were able to explode into the mainstream.” Small magazines “provided that release — pushing critics and writers into the larger culture,” said Balint, who previously edited Sources, the journal of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America.
A long piece in Tablet recently argued that such Jewish influence is in steep decline “anywhere where American Jews once made their mark,” from academia to Hollywood to government. Author Jacob Savage doesn’t blame the loss of the immigrant work ethic, however, but rather “American liberalism” for marginalizing Jews.
Whatever the cause, few of the newer journals aspire to that kind of influence on the larger culture, and acknowledge that they are trying to shape the conversation within the Jewish community.
“We believe that Jewish leaders need great ideas to do their work well,” said Rabbi Justus Baird, senior vice president for national programs at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America and publisher of its journal Sources, launched in 2021. “The way we invest in ideas is by cultivating a large group of Jewish thinkers and scholars who are doing not just the scholarship for its own sake, but really trying to work collaboratively on how Jewish thought can apply to the challenges facing the Jewish people.”
The Hartman Institute (which also counts the Maimonides Fund among its long list of major donors) is a religiously pluralistic, liberal Zionist think tank with outposts in New York and Jerusalem. Recent essays in Sources include lengthy essays by Yale religious studies professor Christine Hayes on the ethics of shaming and Hartman scholar Mijal Bitton on how relationships can heal the breach between the Diaspora and Israel.
Part of Hartman’s goal in publishing the journal is to provide a space for such long-form articles, filling what Baird calls “a gap between the quick, super-responsive, news-oriented Jewish publication landscape, the hot takes about what is going on, and the academic Jewish work.”
“It’s a space where ideas can really percolate,” said Claire Sufrin, who now edits Sources. “The written word, the printed word is there and can be shared in that way and people can engage with it over and over again.”
Masorti, the relaunched journal of Conservative Judaism, is also trying to bridge a gap, in this case between Jewish scholarship and the synagogue.
“Rabbis have responsibilities to serve as congregational leaders, and also the obligation to engage in Jewish learning and scholarship,” said Rabbi Joseph Prouser, the editor of Masorti.
The original Conservative Judaism was published from 1945 through 2014. The reboot is sponsored by the movement’s Rabbinical Assembly and its five seminaries, including the Jewish Theological Seminary, the New York flagship. Its readership base is rabbis and cantors affiliated with the movement.
Masorti arrives at a critical time for the Conservative movement: In an essay in the first issue, its associate editor, Rabbi Jonathan Rosenbaum, says what was once America’s largest Jewish denomination is at a “precipice.”
“At its summit, the plurality of [North American] Jews identified with the Conservative movement, something like 40%,” Rosenbaum said in an interview. “There was something like 1.6 million Jews who were thought to be part of the Conservative movement up to maybe the late ‘80s, early ‘90s. Today, there are about 500,000.
“Part of the goal of the journal,” he said, is to “look at the problems and the means of solving them.”
In the past the Conservative Judaism journal had been a forum for debate within the movement. It published dueling papers, for example, on the decision to ordain women and what is and isn’t permissible on Shabbat. Prouser says he’ll uphold that tradition of dissent: The current issue features an essay by Michal Raucher, a Jewish studies professor at Rutgers University, who criticizes the movement’s establishment for embracing a justification for abortion that doesn’t go far enough in recognizing the bodily autonomy of women (an argument she also advanced in a JTA oped).
And Prouser does hope these arguments are heard beyond the movement, positioned between traditionalist Orthodoxy and liberal Reform. “One of the beauties of the Conservative movement is that we can talk to people to our right to our left right, we can talk to the entire spectrum of the Jewish community,” he said.
The editors of the new journals agree that there are fewer and fewer spaces for civil conversation among Jews, blaming the filter bubble of the internet and the take-no-prisoners style of current political debate. And each said they would like to be part of the solution.
Sufrin, the editor of Hartman’s journal, calls it a “bridge, because people can talk about it together, they can engage with the ideas together, and it’s in that conversation that they can develop a relationship and ultimately, talk together more productively.”
The question is whether it is too late: At a time when algorithms reward readers with the kind of material they are likely to agree with, will even an elite reach across ideological divides and listen to what the other side is saying? When institutions — from government to religion — regard compromise as surrender, who dares to concede that your ideological opponent might have a point?
“Difference and disagreement are productive when we engage with the best versions of those with whom we disagree,” Hayes writes in Sources. That sounds like a call to action. Or is it an epitaph?
—
The post The battle for Jewish hearts and minds returns to the printed page appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Dublin city councillors accuse Israel and ‘Zionist lobby’ of quashing proposal to rename Herzog Park
(JTA) — Dublin’s City Council was divided Monday night over a proposal to postpone voting on stripping the name of an Irish-born Israeli president from a city park, with dozens of members voting to move forward with the controversial renaming.
The council ultimately voted to send the “denaming” proposal for Herzog Park back to a planning committee, but not before council members spent more than hour commenting on the proposal and the outcry it drew from Irish, Israeli and Jewish leaders.
Several criticized Israel and said they wanted to see the park named for an Irish Jew whose contributions came at home. Some denounced the “Zionist lobby” and “Israeli lobby” for intervening in the renaming effort.
Pat Dunne, of the United Left party, told chief executive Richard Shakespeare, who proposed postponing the vote on procedural grounds, that he believed the Israeli army was responsible for the outcry. The meeting was livestreamed.
“I’m further convinced that whatever phone calls was made to our CEO and to other officials probably emanated from Israeli intelligence attached to the Israeli Defense Force because they’re active in every issue in relation to Palestine,” Dunne said. “Trace it all the way back, Richard, and you’ll find that’s the source.”
About criticism of the renaming plan from the Irish president and foreign minister, another council member, Cieran Perry, said, “The optics will appear to show these senior Irish politicians carrying out the instructions of the Israeli lobby, and it’s very hard to argue with a view when we see the actual result.”
Ciarán Ó Meachair accused Herzog of having “raped, murdered and pillaged innocent civilians” and said he would continue to press for a renaming, suggesting the British Jewish communist politician Max Levitas, who died in 2018.
“This was a full court press by the Zionist lobby, and they think they will win it,” he said. “They will not win this.”
Herzog Park, located in Dublin’s Jewish hub, was named in 1995 for Chaim Herzog, the son of the first Irish chief rabbi who became Israel’s sixth president in 1983. His son, Isaac Herzog, is the president of Israel today.
Pro-Palestinian activists called for the park to be stripped of the Herzog name during the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, citing Chaim Herzog’s role as a prominent defender of Zionism and his role in Israel’s War of Independence. (He also fought in the British army during World War II.)
Irish Jewish leaders said the proposal to remove Herzog’s name was a hurtful repudiation of decades of strong ties between Ireland and Israel that have recently frayed amid staunch pro-Palestinian sentiment in Ireland. Israel closed its embassy in Dublin last year, citing the Irish government’s “antisemitic rhetoric” including its support for Palestinian statehood.
Several council members said they opposed the renaming because of the hurt expressed by Jewish Dubliners. “These are people, Irish people, who live in our community, work in our community, and have done nothing wrong, and I don’t think anyone’s intention here was to bring hurt upon them, but that is an outcome of what we’ve done here,” said David Coffey of the centrist Finn Gael party.
One council member, Rory Hogan, said he had gone to the neighborhood around Herzog Park and found that residents there felt they had not been consulted in the renaming plan. He suggested that the council find another way to honor the concerns of pro-Palestinian activists.
“The outcome of this debate should not in any way diminish the urgency of recognizing the atrocities taking place in Gaza,” Hogan said. “We should continue to pursue a way in which we can honor and remember the thousands of civilians who have been killed and the children whose lives have been destroyed. But if we are to create a meaningful memorial of place of solidarity, let it be in a location of real significance to all.”
Ultimately, the vote to send the proposal back to the naming committee passed, with 35 in favor, 25 opposed and 1 abstaining. That means the proposal can resurface in the future, if the committee addresses the process errors that the council’s attorneys assessed and outlined in a legal opinion delivered to the council members before Monday’s meeting.
Several council members also apologized to the family of Terrence Wheelock, a man killed by a police 20 years ago who had been set to have a different park renamed after him, because that proposal was simultaneously derailed.
For some Jewish observers, the council meeting renewed bruised feelings that they thought had been repaired by Shakespeare’s decision to withdraw the proposal.
“Watching the @DubCityCouncil meeting – feeling utterly sick and despondent. There is palpable hatred in that room,” tweeted Ed Abrahamson, an Irish Jew who had raised concerns about the proposed renaming and praised the decision to postpone the vote. “My optimism from last night has vanished.”
The post Dublin city councillors accuse Israel and ‘Zionist lobby’ of quashing proposal to rename Herzog Park appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘Antisemite of the Year’ finalists include Tucker Carlson and Ms. Rachel, but not Nick Fuentes
Nick Fuentes says he feels snubbed by the controversial activist group StopAntisemitism, which neglected to include him among its finalists for “Antisemite of the Year.”
The group’s finalists, announced Sunday, include conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, whose friendly interview with Fuentes has splintered the conservative movement.
Other “nominees” include pro-Palestinian celebrities Ms. Rachel, Cynthia Nixon and Marcia Cross; mixed-martial-arts athlete and Holocaust denier Bryce Mitchell; two personalities associated with left-wing network The Young Turks; and social media personalities on both the far left (Guy Christensen) and far right (Stew Peters). Followers are encouraged to vote for whomever they feel is most deserving.
But Fuentes himself, the openly white nationalist and antisemitic livestreamer whose “groyper” movement has gained a toehold this year among young Republicans, was left off.
“Why wasn’t I nominated for antisemite of the year,” Fuentes posted on X after the finalists were revealed, apparently wounded by the omission.
In a follow-up post, StopAntisemitism said it does not nominate people more than once and has nominated Fuentes in previous years. “While he was a finalist a few years back, his absence from this year’s cycle does not erase his antisemitism. Rather, it allows us to focus attention on other individuals who are spreading hate,” the group wrote.
A watchdog presence with more than 300,000 followers on X, StopAntisemitism regularly mobilizes against activists and social media posts. The group has faced criticism for what some perceive as an inordinate focus on Muslim personalities, pro-Palestinian actions and non-prominent individuals. Its defenders deny that, pointing out that StopAntisemitism also regularly spotlights neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers on the right.
“From downplaying white supremacy to promoting the antisemitic ‘great replacement’ theory, Carlson has built a career turning extremist dog whistles into broadcast-ready talking points, legitimizing voices that traffic in Holocaust revisionism, conspiracy, and hate,” StopAntisemitism wrote in its nomination of Carlson.
The group nominated Ms. Rachel, the children’s YouTube personality who has become an outspoken advocate for children affected by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, because it said she “has used her massive platform to spread Hamas-aligned propaganda.” A left-wing group, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, has defended Ms. Rachel, saying StopAntisemitism targeted her for expressing sympathy with Palestinians.
Nixon was nominated for her “BDS activism” (she was listed in a film‑industry petition boycotting Israeli film institutions and has been outspoken about civilian casualties in Gaza); Mitchell and Peters, meanwhile, have embraced open Holocaust denial.
Last year’s “winner,” far-right pundit and conspiracy theorist Candace Owens, was also absent despite her recent resurgence promoting conspiracy theories accusing Israeli of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Previous “winners” have included Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, as well as rapper Ye and a board chair of Ben & Jerry’s, the progressive ice cream company founded by Jews.
Since its inception in 2019, the “award” has always gone to a person of color.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post ‘Antisemite of the Year’ finalists include Tucker Carlson and Ms. Rachel, but not Nick Fuentes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
If Israel reinstates the death penalty, it will betray Jewish values — and Jewish history
The Knesset is considering a bill that would instate the death penalty as a punishment for convicted terrorists in Israel. Passing it would be an enormous mistake.
Allowing executions in the Jewish state — the justice system of which has, since 1954, only issued that punishment to Adolf Eichmann — would only give fodder to Israel’s enemies. Right now, Israel stands apart in the Middle East for its abolishment of the death penalty. Hamas regularly executes Palestinians in Gaza, extrajudicially and otherwise. A court operating under Yemen’s Houthi rebels recently sentenced 17 people to death for allegedly spying on behalf of Israel and others. Iran, which has carried out death sentences against Jews, has executed more than 1,500 people in 2025 alone.
Which means that if Israel violates its moral obligations and ethical standards by undoing its historic commitment to not inflicting the one punishment that can never be undone, it will be giving its enemies a gift.
First, changing the justice system to allow for the death penalty would provide Hamas terrorists incarcerated in Israel with a new platform for their message. Hamas could proclaim them to be martyred heroes — a new layer of disingenuous but effective propaganda.
Terrorists such as the perpetrators of the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre often believe that their spirits will receive rewards upon their physical death. Within that framework, lifetime incarceration is a far harsher punishment, and therefore a more effective one. Plus, the notion that executing terrorists will prevent future hostage-taking for prisoner swaps is shaky. Hamas’ relationship with Israel has long been defined by retaliatory action, which means that the state killing of Hamas prisoners is likely to lead to Hamas reciprocally executing future Israeli hostages and “collaborators.” The endless cycle of violence will continue.
And since Israel seeks to be a transparent democracy that follows the rule of law, particularly within its judiciary, a legal death sentencing scheme also would prove costly in terms of public perception.
Israel’s reputation as a bastion of moral clarity in the Middle East has dramatically changed in the more than two years since the Oct. 7 attack. The devastation of the war in Gaza, and of increasing violence in the West Bank, has led to a substantial drop in positive perceptions of Israel worldwide. And while the Israeli judiciary has long been one of the country’s most trusted institutions, the deleterious effects of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pre-war proposals for a judicial overhaul mean it is no longer held in the same high regard, in Israel or the rest of the world, as it once was.
This bill has already advanced past a first reading in the Knesset. Moving it any further toward becoming law would only hasten the decline of Israel’s image.
Some of those who have argued in favor of the bill have invoked the fallacy of “deterrence.” Shin Bet security service Chief David Zini even told the Security Cabinet that enacting the death penalty for terrorists who kill Israelis would help prevent future attacks.
That statement doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Recent studies have concluded that when it comes to deterrence, there is no demonstrable link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates.
But the most profound reason to reject this bill comes from our own painful history as a people. Many Jews, including myself, have long objected to the death penalty in part because of the shadow of the Holocaust.
We believe, in the words of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, that “death is not the answer.” By the end of his life, Wiesel publicly said that he saw no possible exceptions to this rule:“With every cell of my being and with every fiber of my memory, I oppose the death penalty in all forms,” he said. “I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don’t think it’s human to become an agent of the angel of death.”
In this light, it is particularly troubling that the Israeli bill proposes using lethal injection against convicted terrorists. That method of capital punishment is a direct Nazi legacy, first implemented in human history by the Third Reich as part of their infamous Aktion T4 protocol, used to kill people deemed “unworthy of life.” Dr. Karl Brandt, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician, devised the program.
In the wake of the Holocaust and the unparalleled horrors of the 20th century, more than 70% of the nations of the world have recognized the inviolability of the human right to life, and have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
21st-century Judaism must reflect this evolution, and Israel must never cross this moral Rubicon.
The post If Israel reinstates the death penalty, it will betray Jewish values — and Jewish history appeared first on The Forward.