William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is one of his most powerful plays. In recent years, there have been some who said it should not be taught or performed because of its anti-Jewish themes.

Early on in the new production of the play at Classic Stage Company in Manhattan, one performer on stage calls it a “problem play.”

I’ve taught the play many times at a high school level, and no student came away hating Jews because Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, is the villain of the play. Art is a reflection of reality — and one character does not represent an entire people.

There are surely large antisemitic elements in the play, including that Shylock is bent on getting his pound of flesh, refusing to have multiple times the money he has lent Antonio (who has mocked him in the past and treated him poorly) returned.

I was looking forward to seeing this production, and how Richard Topol as Shylock would give the “Hath not a Jew eyes,” speech, in which he argues for equality and seeing Jewish people’s humanity.

With rising antisemitism in the world and in America, I looked forward to seeing how the play would be “re-imagined” — as Classic Stage Company promised.

Jewish director Igor Golyak has a kernel of genius in having this staged production as a talk show. But the kernel unfortunately never pops. He abandons a possible Jerry Springer idea for some weak slapstick comedy that doesn’t work in the slightest.

The actors are all high energy and talented. Alexandra Silber, who I’ve seen excellently play Tzeitel in a production of Fiddler on the Roof, is a commanding presence on stage as Portia and fun to watch. Jorge Espinoza has great charm as an idealistic and muscular Bassanio. As Shylock, Richard Topol wears Groucho Marx fake glasses and a fake big nose and he is a good actor, but the play is so off-kilter, there is no power in any of his lines. Gus Birney goes all in with a good amount of gusto as Shylock’s daughter, Jessica, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she has a lead role in an upcoming play. T.R Knight who plays Antonio, has some good moments.

But I cannot understand what in the world Golyak is trying to do here. Yes, we get it. He wants to show the absurdity of how in Shakespeare’s times, the play was viewed as a comedy and should not be viewed as funny. But in order to do this, one should make sure there is balance and power, not just things that appear different for the sake of being different.

This production is like a promising microwave meal that looks smoking hot at the beginning, and fails because not enough care and craft was taken.

There are two jaw-droppingly absurd moves. The first is to have Richard as Shylock say “Richard is my name.” This is simply infantile. The biggest miss is to think people will care that you have a painted Jewish star and the chanting of the “kel maleh” the prayer recited at funerals, despite scenes earlier, having a puppet perform a sex act on another. You can choose one of the other to have in your play — but using both together is a cheap trick, and destroys tonal consistency.

There is value to abstract art, and not doing everything “on the nose.” But to try to shock simply to be shocking is pointless.

To have “Hava Nagilah” in the show also serves no purpose. A scene where a character is tied down as was Jack Tripper in Three’s Company also has no relation to The Merchant of Venice.

A woman who sat next to me said she’d seen Golyak’s direction of Our Class, which was a play about five Jews and five Catholics in Poland and is inspired by the 1941 pogrom in the Polish village of Jedwabne. I am sorry I did not see it.

It is sadly ironic that the Classic State Company has done away with a classic play, and turned it into a ball of randomness and banality. That some of the women are scantily clad neither helps nor hurts the production.

When you peel off the plastic, this production of The Merchant of Venice has some smoke, but no fire because Golyak, despite a great cast, fails to go deeper into a depiction of the consumption and understanding of information and more specifically, hate.

The author is a writer based in New York.

The post Re-imagined ‘Merchant of Venice’ in New York Fails Horribly Because of Poor Artistic Choices first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Amnesty International’s latest significant report, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” is in keeping with the organization’s long history of hostility towards Israel — and accuses the Jewish State of genocide in Gaza.

According to Amnesty, its report:

documents Israel’s actions during its offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip from 7 October 2023. It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Amnesty’s conclusion, however, is categorically wrong.

Amnesty Redefines Genocide

Having already resorted, in 2022, to formulating a totally new definition of what it calls “the crime of apartheid,” Amnesty has changed the definition of genocide to suit its predetermined conclusions.

Perhaps knowing it doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, @amnesty has resorted to manufacturing its own definition of ‘#genocide’ against Israel, by claiming in their report that the universally established – and sole accepted legal definition – as outlined in the Genocide… pic.twitter.com/cUTDliObR5

— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) December 5, 2024

Despite this, the coverage of Amnesty’s genocide report demonstrates how too many journalists are not prepared to exercise their own critical thinking.

The media commonly suffer from the “Halo Effect,” whereby journalists cite non-governmental and so-called human rights organizations like Amnesty, treating them as beyond reproach and assuming their information is authoritative.

This effect is exacerbated by the need for the media to get the story out quickly. It’s unlikely that a journalist would spend their time properly reviewing the substantial 296-page Amnesty report. So, Amnesty’s talking points in its six-page press release summary or statements at a press conference will be what appears in the media.

And the news cycle moves quickly. By the time those who wish to respond to the report in-depth will have finished reading it and issuing a response, the Amnesty story will be over. The impact of the report, however, and the genocide charge, will last much longer, becoming part of the media narrative, as Israel comes under sustained assault from multiple sources seeking to delegitimize its right to self-defense and even its right to exist.

NGO Monitor did manage to obtain the Amnesty press release in advance, noting in its preliminary analysis that the six-page, 2,500-word embargoed summary “highlights the absence of substance and the dominance of slogans and myths. Following previous practice, the press release declares Israel to be guilty of genocide, regardless of the reality in Gaza. This basic paradigm is evidenced by Amnesty’s highly selective use of ‘evidence,’ including fundamental omission of facts that do not support its political line, and the blatantly manipulative discussion of civilian casualties.”

This discussion of civilian casualties is taken up by Salo Aizenberg, who notes Amnesty’s avoidance of addressing the combatants killed figure and the resulting civilian/combatant ratio would have shown evidence of the IDF’s precision targeting, thus eviscerating Amnesty’s report.

I noticed on page 59 Amnesty cites an IDF claim from Jan 2024 saying they killed 8,000 fighters. I searched for the recent estimates of 17,000-20,000 (I searched several numbers) and read the entire section 6.1.2 “Scale of Killings and Injuries” where casualties are discussed in…

— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) December 5, 2024

NGO Monitor also noted that Amnesty had “made an embargoed text of the report and a lengthy press release available to select journalists in an attempt to ensure favorable media coverage. Although under no obligation to adhere to Amnesty’s embargo, journalists who cover Amnesty’s report should avoid this manipulation and incorporate detailed critical analysis.”

It appears that ship has already sailed as media outlets, including Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, AFP, BBC, The Guardian, Washington Post, and Sky News, jump on the story.

Amnesty Israel Rejects the Report

So, it’s unlikely that any international press will do the extra legwork to question Amnesty’s malleable definition of genocide. It’s also unlikely that any will sit up and take notice of the press release (Hebrew) issued by Amnesty’s Israel branch.

While still highly critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, Amnesty Israel states it “does not accept the claim that genocide has been proven to be taking place in the Gaza Strip and does not accept the operative findings of the report.”

Haaretz, meanwhile, which is followed religiously by foreign media, reports on a joint statement from several members of Amnesty Israel and Jewish members of Amnesty International who:

argue that report’s “artificial analysis” — especially with regard to the widespread destruction in Gaza, which allegedly indicates a genocidal intent — suggests that the authors “reached a predetermined conclusion — and did not draw a conclusion based on an objective review of the facts and the law.”

“From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the ‘genocide report,’ even when research was still in its initial stages,” the Jewish employees reveal.

“This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled ‘genocide report’ and then to have to conclude that it is ‘only’ about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations.”

The joint statement further stated that the report “is motivated by a desire to support a popular narrative among Amnesty International’s target audience,” and that it stems “unfortunately, from an atmosphere within Amnesty International of minimizing the seriousness of the October 7 massacre.

“It is a failure — and sometimes even a refusal — to address the Israeli victims in a personal and humane manner.” According to the Jewish staff, the international organization also “ignored efforts to raise these concerns.”

But will Western and foreign journalists take any notice?

Holocaust Appropriation

It says much about a journalist’s mindset when the Holocaust is appropriated to subconsciously associate Israel’s actions in Gaza, which Amnesty is claiming to be genocide, with the very real Nazi genocide against the Jewish people.

Sadly, both the Associated Press and The Guardian went down that road in their stories on the Amnesty report.

Whatever is happening in Gaza, it is categorically nothing like the Holocaust.

So why does @AP need to mention it other than to subconsciously plant an offensive and inappropriate parallel? pic.twitter.com/81VWL1LaPZ

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 5, 2024

Accusing Israel of weaponizing antisemitism even in advance of a reaction to an Amnesty report.
Appropriating the Holocaust to stick the knife in over genocide accusations against Israel.

We see you, @guardian. pic.twitter.com/n9u4LXP6Uu

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 5, 2024

The Guardian even went as far as to preempt Israeli reaction to the Amnesty report, claiming it would “generate accusations of antisemitism,” effectively accusing Israelis and Jews of weaponizing antisemitism in bad faith.

AFP didn’t even bother to include any Israeli reaction to the report beyond the boilerplate line: “Israel has repeatedly and forcefully denied allegations of genocide, accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields.”

The Washington Post quotes Paul O’Brien, executive director of Amnesty International USA who says: “What the law requires is that we prove that there is sufficient evidence that there is [genocidal] intent, amongst all the other complex intents that are going to exist in warfare.”

And this is the crux: The death toll and destruction in Gaza can be explained as an inevitable and tragic outcome of a war where Hamas have done everything possible to put Gaza’s civilian population in harm’s way. And Israel has taken every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, while still allowing humanitarian aid to cross into Gaza.

The inevitable result of Amnesty’s approach is to turn every war into a genocide, thereby stripping the word of its true meaning.

Israel’s actions are not those of a state that shows intent to commit a genocide, and to charge Israel with such a crime shows just how divorced from reality Amnesty International and its cheerleaders are.

Sadly, the international media have given an unquestioning platform for this libel.

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

The post Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The story of Bashar al-Assad’s downfall actually begins shortly after October 7, 2023, when Israel’s “War Cabinet” adopted two official war goals: to dismantle Hamas’ military and political control in Gaza, and to bring the hostages home. Eleven months into the fighting, Israel stepped up its effort to achieve a third goal — returning Israel’s northern population safely to their homes. Less than six hours later, more than 3,000 pagers exploded throughout Lebanon.

Since that time, Israel has eviscerated Hezbollah; it has also degraded Hamas from a terror semi-state to a small scale insurgency group, and utterly humiliated Iran. Iran’s humiliation, which began when Israel disintegrated much of its terror proxy network, came to a dramatic conclusion when Israel entered Iranian airspace, destroyed its missile factories, and wiped out its entire, Russian-made air defense system.

Then, at 4am on November 26, the Lebanon “cease-fire” agreement began. Predictably, Hezbollah has been breaching the ceasefire ever since, but unlike in prior years, Israel is directly enforcing the agreement through military action, as permitted by the cease-fire’s terms.

Meanwhile, key players in Syria had been watching. Its president, Bashar al-Assad, had survived the Syrian civil war that began in  2011 — and he did so mainly through support from Russia and Iran, including an estimated 10,000 seasoned Hezbollah fighters.

In exchange, Assad provided both his patrons with access to the country, including turning Syria into one big Iranian highway for moving weapons to Hezbollah — primarily for use against Israel.

Now, however, Russia’s forces are being massively depleted by its invasion of Ukraine, Iran is weakened and far less feared after its shellacking at the hands of the IDF, and Hezbollah is a shadow of its former self. The various rebel groups in Syria, who had been contained but never defeated, took notice, and attacked.

Assad was overthrown on Sunday morning, primarily by radical Sunni extremists — many that have been linked to the ISIS and Al-Qaeda terror organizations in the past. A central core of those militants have rebranded themselves under the name “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” (HTS). HTS is backed primarily by Qatar and Turkey, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Unconfirmed reports allege that the US secretly supported HTS in exchange for a promise to not attack the US or Israel, though history shows that such promises from terror groups are rarely reliable. HTS has publicly said it renounced terrorism, and seeks a free Syria.

Another group fighting in Syria is the so called “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF), a coalition of Kurds, Christians, and other minorities, connected with the PKK/YPG, a Kurdish militant group widely designated as a terror organization, with a Marxist, anti-US and anti-Western ideology. Nonetheless, the US has been backing the SDF for years — including with US troops — hoping that this will prevent the group from turning on the West, despite its violent ideology.

Meanwhile, Iraq has been absorbing many of the Shiite fighters fleeing Syria, raising the question of whether America’s plan to fully withdraw from Iraq by 2026 is wise under the circumstances. Iran, which had initially sent fighters to protect Assad, has since pulled out, and Hezbollah sent a small contingent of some 2,000 fighters, who proved mostly ineffective.

With the departure of Assad, Iran and Russia appear to have lost their influence in Syria, which is yet another blow to Iran’s proxy network, and at least in part a repercussion from Israel’s astounding military successes since October 7. Yet the forces taking over Syria are mostly the same violent Sunni terrorists who have been fighting for control of Syria since the Arab Spring in 2011. (Given that Iran and Russia were the only reasons Assad lasted in power so long — and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people — it’s unlikely Syria’s new leaders will support Russia and Iran, but that’s definitely not a guarantee.)

Despite its astounding successes since October 7, Israel has not yet achieved its war goals: it is still not safe for Israelis to return to their homes in the North, Hamas still clings to a degree of control in Gaza, and some 100 hostages still remain in horrific captivity, either alive or dead.

Yet there is cause for optimism. Though the northern cease-fire agreement is technically between Israel and the government of Lebanon, it was also approved by Hezbollah, at least what’s left of it. The terror group, which had sworn to keep fighting until Israel left Gaza, has therefore stepped back from its promise, thus abandoning Hamas to its own devices. This blow to Hamas’ delusion of defeating Israel through a regional war, along with some fierce rhetoric by incoming President Donald Trump, has raised hopes of closing a deal to, at long last, bring home the some 100 Israeli hostages who remain in Hamas captivity.

Trump has also vowed to reinstate his campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran, which drastically reduced its influence in the region, and made it vulnerable to its own domestic population, much of which would like to overthrow the Islamic regime.

Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports out of Yemen indicate that the continued weakening of Iran may trigger an attempt by Saudi backed forces to overthrow the Houthi rebel group. Finally, here in Israel, we are optimistic that the Abraham Accords process will resume, beginning with Saudi Arabia and perhaps spreading across the more moderate parts of the Arab world.

In short, there are no “good guys” to root for in Syria, and there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by Israel and the Western world. Yet Israel is significantly safer today than it was 14 months ago, and is now widely considered the preeminent power in the Middle East: by friends and enemies alike.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

The post What Will Happen in Syria? The Truth Is — No One Knows first appeared on Algemeiner.com.