Uncategorized
What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel
(JTA) — Eric Alterman, born in 1960, says the view of Israel he absorbed growing up in a Jewish family in suburban Scarsdale, New York, was decidedly one-sided.
“I went on this nerdy presidential classroom thing when I was in high school,” he recalls, “and some Christian kid from the South raised his hand and said to the rabbi, ‘I don’t get it, if the Jews could have a state, why can’t the Palestinians?’ And I was like, ‘How dare you?’”
Alterman would go on to attend Cornell University, where he wrote his honors thesis on Israel, Vietnam and neoconservatism; spend a semester abroad at Tel Aviv University; study Israeli military history while earning his master’s degree in international relations at Yale, and research a dissertation on American liberalism and the founding of Israel as a doctoral student at Stanford.
Although he frequently writes about Israel as a contributing writer at the Nation and the American Prospect, Alterman is best known for his liberal analysis of the media and U.S. politics. He’s written 11 previous books, including one on Bruce Springsteen.
Yet he never stopped thinking about the widening gap between the idealized Israel of his youth and the reality of its relations with the Palestinians, its Arab neighbors and the West. Even when Israel’s revisionist historians were uncovering evidence of massacres and forced expulsions of Palestinians during the War of Independence, and Israeli politicians and intellectuals began asking why, indeed, the Palestinians didn’t deserve a state of their own, he saw that such discussions were considered blasphemous in most American Jewish circles.
Alterman, now a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, explores that gap in his latest book, “We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel.” The book surveys U.S.-Israel relations, but with a focus on the ways defending Israel have shaped public discourse. It’s a book about arguments: within the administrations of 14 presidents, between Washington and Jerusalem, and mostly among Jews themselves.
Earlier this month we spoke about how the pro-Isael lobby became a powerful political force, the Jewish organizations and pundits who fight to limit the range of debate over Israel, and what he thinks is the high price American Jews have paid for tying their identities so closely to Israel.
“I try to take on shibboleths that in the past have shut down conversation and take them apart and sympathetically show the complexity of the actual situation that lies beneath — so that [criticism and disagreement] over Israel can be understood rather than whisked away by changing the subject, or what-aboutism, or by demonizing the person who is raising them,” said Alterman.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Let me start by congratulating you: It’s the first book about U.S.-Israel relations with a chapter named after a Bruce Springsteen album: “Working on a Dream.”
Eric Alterman: Nobody else has caught that. But it’s not about U.S.-Israel relations. It’s the first book about the debate over Israel in the United States. There’s a million books on U.S.-Israel relations.
So let’s define that more narrowly. The title reminds me of the United Jewish Appeal slogan over the years, “We Are One,” which was about American Jewish solidarity. So who is the “we” in your title, “We Are Not One”?
There are three or four different meanings. The “we” in this book are obviously the United States and Israel. An awful lot of people argue that the United States and Israel have identical interests in the world and that’s crazy, because Israel is this tiny little country in the Middle East and we’re a global superpower thousands of miles away. So obviously, we’re going to have differences. Number two, American Jews and Israeli Jews are very different people. They have very different life experiences. And they see things quite differently as evidenced by the political split between them. The title also refers specifically just to Americans, because we can’t even discuss most things anymore. The pro-Israel community, such as it ever was, is enormously split and it’s split in angry ways.
Much of your book is about what happens to American Jews when the idealized portrait of Israel’s founding and its presumed blamelessness in its actions toward the Palestinians comes up against reality. In that context, tell me a little about your choice to devote a chapter to the Leon Uris novel “Exodus,” an extremely sanitized version of Israel’s founding, and the 1960 movie based on it.
The influence of “Exodus” is something I didn’t understand until I wrote the book. It’s crazy, because Leon Uris was this egomaniac who wrote kind of a shitty book and said that he wanted to add a new chapter to the Bible, and he kind of succeeded. I was born in 1960. When I was growing up in suburban New York, every single family had “Exodus” on their shelves. When the movie came out Israelis understood this. They said, “We can just shut down our public relations office now.” And from the standpoint of reality the movie is worse than the book because it has Nazis — the Arabs in the book are working with Nazism. Uris didn’t have the nerve to do that. So the book created this idealized Israel and this idea of [Palestinians as] evil, subhuman Nazis.
What most Americans don’t understand, or choose not to understand, is that before the 1940s most Jews were anti-Zionist, or non-Zionist. This changed in the 1940s, when, as a result in part of the Holocaust, and the reaction to that, and the triumph of Zionists, they became intensely pro-Zionist, leading up to the creation of Israel. But after that, they kind of forgot about Israel. One might have given their children JNF boxes to carry on Halloween instead of UNICEF boxes, or maybe they paid to plant trees. But Israel doesn’t show up in the American Jewish Committee’s 1966 annual report until page 35 or 36, and Nathan Glazer’s 1957 book “American Judaism” says that the creation of the Jewish state has had “remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry.”
With the events of 1967, Uris’ idealized notion of Israel came together with this terrible fear of a second Holocaust, and the terror and shame and frightening nature of that combined to transform American Judaism overnight to an enormous degree.
You are referring to Israel’s lightning victory in the Six-Day War, which even non-religious Jews saw as a kind of miracle, and redemption two decades after the Holocaust. And that transformation, you argue, put defense of Israel, combined with Holocaust consciousness, at the center of Jewish identity.
More than just the center: It basically comprised almost all of it, for many secular Jews. I quote the neoconservative Irving Kristol in the book saying in 1976 that “the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel” was 100% of what Judaism means.
Which in turn led to a the tremendous pro-Israel lobbying efforts, political activism and punditry.
The budgets of American Jewish organizations overnight went from social services and liberal social justice causes to defense of Israel. And rabbis were replaced at the center of public discourse by the heads of these organizations — most of whom had no religious training or knowledge of history or Judaism.
Joe Biden, then vice president, speaks at the AIPAC 2016 Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 20, 2016.
(Molly Riley/AFP via Getty Images)
One distinction you repeatedly make is between what most Jews believe compared to the Jewish organizations that claim to represent them. Surveys show the rank and file is consistently more liberal on Israel and less hawkish than the big organizations — a gap that showed up markedly around the Iraq War and the Iran nuclear deal.
Right. The big mistake that so many in the media make is that they go to the heads of these organizations who pretend to speak for American Jews when they don’t speak for American Jews. They speak for their boards and their donors.
The shift to Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel coincides with an era in which there is seldom daylight between what Israel wants and what the United States wants or agrees to — often to the frustration of presidents. You are critical of those who exaggerate the pro-Israel lobby’s influence — folks like Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, authors of the 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — but, at the same time, you write, referring to the Israel debate in America, about “the continued stranglehold that money, power, organizational structure, and clearly defined paths to personal career advancement continue to hold over the shape of foreign policy.” How will you respond to critics who will say your book is trafficking in the myth of Jewish power and its conspiracy-minded hold over American policy?
The short answer is, that’s why I wrote a 500-page book — basically, for two reasons: One, everything is incredibly complicated. And some of those complications are consistent with antisemitic myths, and therefore they have to be teased out and broken down in such a way that you’re telling the truth rather than portraying the myth.
If you say things without context, they sound antisemitic. I say that yes, Jews are very powerful in the media and many use that power on or about Israel. But I think if you lay out the examples that I use, if you look at them and examine them, I don’t see how you can conclude otherwise. The people I describe often say that about themselves — how much power and influence they yield.
Secondly, I’ve always found it just about impossible to discuss Israel with anyone, because you have to share exactly the same assumptions with that person. And if you don’t, then they take it personally, or you’re an antisemite, or, at best, you’re insufficiently sensitive to how important antisemitism is. And if you describe ways in which American Jews act in ways that are consistent with antisemitic myth, it has a way of shutting down the conversation.
Undoubtedly there’s some criticism of Israel that is motivated by antisemitism, but there’s an awful lot of reasons to be critical of Israel, particularly if you are a Palestinian or care about Palestinians. This accusation [antisemitism] has shut down the discourse and part of my hopes in demonstrating the complexities of this history is to open this up.
So let me ask about your own stake in this. Your educational background and relationship to Israel are similar in many ways to the writers and thinkers in your book who tolerate no criticism of Israel. I don’t know if you call yourself a Zionist, but you have some connection to Israel, and you’re also willing to tolerate critiques of Israel. What’s the difference between you and some of the other people who went on the same journey?
For the longest time I was comfortable with the words “liberal Zionist,” but I don’t think they have any meaning anymore. I don’t think it’s possible to be a liberal Zionist — you have to choose. Israel is the only putatively democratic country that prefers Trump to either Obama or Biden, and it’s not even close. And young Israelis are moving further in that direction and young American Jews are moving further in the opposite direction.
So you ask me if I am a liberal Zionist. I don’t think the word “Zionist” is useful at all anymore, because Israel is a country and it’s not going anywhere. I sometimes call myself an anti-anti-Zionist, because anti-Zionism is dumb. I’m very anti-BDS. If I thought [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement] could end occupation, I would support it, even though the idea of boycotting Jews puts a bad taste in my mouth. But the theory behind BDS apparently, and I’ve spent a lot of time on this, is that the world will force Israel to give up its identity and turn the country over to its enemies. It’s inconceivable that Israel would do that and inconceivable the United States would pressure them to do that. So BDS is entirely performative. It’s more of a political fashion statement than anything else.
And to me, it speaks to the failure of Palestinian politics throughout history. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians and their bad politics because it’s based on two problems. One is that they have never been able to see the future very well. So they should have agreed in 1921 and 1937, or whenever they would have had the majority and they were being given a country by the British. They should have taken the lousy offer from Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000. I kind of get it because they have so many competing constituencies, and it’s impossible to satisfy all of them at the same time. I understand that. It’s hard to imagine a Palestinian politician who could say yes, and if you look at Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, in both cases, it’s hard to imagine making peace with them.
I read that in your book, and my first thought was, well, isn’t that basically just confirming what the pro-Israel right has always said — that Israel has no partner for peace? So maybe the best it can do is maintain a status quo that assures some security for Israel and a workable something for the Palestinians.
Well, number one I hold Israel significantly responsible for the conditions under which that has developed and that they can change those. And number two, that’s no excuse for the way Palestinians are treated, either in the occupation or in Israel. So yes, I agree. There’s no one to make peace with today, but there are many steps Israel could take that could vastly improve the lives of the Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and inside Israel. And there are a lot of steps they could take that could build confidence for a future that could weaken Hamas, that could strengthen the Palestinian Authority, so that one day peace would be possible. But they do the opposite.
An Israel supporter at a New York rally to tell the United Nations “no more anti-Israel documents or resolutions,” Jan. 12, 2017. (Don Emmert/AFP via Getty Images)
You talk about funding of Israel studies and Jewish studies departments as a reaction against fears of a pro-Palestinian takeover of academia. At the same time, you write how Palestinian supporters “succeeded in colonizing Middle East studies departments, student faculty organizations, and far-left political organizations.” Why does that matter in the long run if, as you also write, nothing’s really going to change American policy on Israel?
I gave a talk before the book came out at Tel Aviv University and someone asked me that question. I said, You care about these transformations for two reasons. One, you really will be all alone in the world. You’ll have the support of conservative [Evangelical] Christians who are in many respects antisemitic and are using you for their own purposes. So if you lose American Jews, you will be existentially alone in a way you’re not now and that strikes me as very unpleasant.
I do think that the quote-unquote pro-Israel community has a stranglehold on American politics that I can’t see changing anytime soon, and I think the change in the Democratic Party [that it will turn more pro-Palestinian] is very much exaggerated by both sides for their own reasons.
That being said, the people who are being trained now to be in the State Department and the National Security Council and the Defense Department and the think tanks and the places where the intellectual foundation of U.S. policy is made are learning something very different from what you and I learned in college. Right now, there’s no such thing as an influential Palestinian lobby in this country. There’s no pushing back. There’s no percentage for anyone opposing Israel who has a career interest in the future. That will change, and the whole shaping of the discourse will change and that will change the relationship between the United States and Israel. It’s not going to happen anytime soon, but it’s definitely going to happen.
As Jews in this country have remained largely liberal, Israel appears to be getting more illiberal, as we’ve seen with a new government that is more right-wing than any previously. And Israel has become more of a divisive element among Jews than a unifying force. As this gap appears to be widening, do you have any real hope for changing the discourse?
No, I don’t have any hopes for that. I don’t have anything optimistic to say about Israel. I think, politically speaking, from the standpoint of American Jews, everything is going in the wrong direction. But by demonstrating just how different Israeli Jews are than American Jews, and how little Israeli Jews care what American Jews think, I do think that it presents an opportunity for American Jews to think about what it means to be an American Jew in the Diaspora. Roughly half of the Jews in the world live in the United States. And since 1967 American Jews have defined themselves vicariously through Israeli Jews and taking pride in Israel. They expressed their identities by defending Israel and attacking the media when the media didn’t defend Israel.
Meanwhile, American Jews hardly ever go to synagogue. According to Pew, 20% of American Jews regularly attend synagogue and half of them are Orthodox, who are 10% of the community. What brought me back into Judaism was studying Torah. And hardly any American Jews are ever exposed to that.
So I think there’s an opportunity to reimagine Diaspora Jewry now that the Israel story doesn’t work, and it’s clear that it doesn’t work. Young American Jews are leaving or voting with their feet. They’re walking away. Israel-centric Judaism is in part responsible, although it’s not the whole story. Intermarriage is a big part of the story. The de-religionization of all groups is part of the story. But personally, I don’t see what a liberal American Jew would see in a Judaism that defines itself as it has for the past 50 years as defending Israel and remembering the Holocaust.
—
The post What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Anti-Jewish Hate Crimes in New York City Increased 182% During Mamdani’s First Month in Office, Police Data Shows
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers a speech during his inauguration ceremony in New York City, US, Jan. 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
Anti-Jewish hate crimes in New York City skyrocketed by 182 percent in January during Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s first month in office compared to the same period last year, according to newly released figures from the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force investigated 152 percent more bias-related incidents last month (58) compared to January 2025 (23), the data showed.
There were 31 anti-Jewish hate crimes in the first month of 2026, which accounted for more than half of all the hate crime incidents in January, compared to only 11 anti-Jewish hate crimes in January 2025. Last month’s hate crimes targeted Jews more than any other group, including Muslims (7), Asians (5), Blacks (2), Hispanics (1), and Whites (1). Others were victimized over their sexual orientation (5), religion (3), gender (2), and age (1), according to NYPD statistics.
Approximately 10 percent of New York City residents are Jewish, according to the New York City Council.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist and avowed anti-Zionist, was sworn into office on Jan. 1. Hours later, he formally revoked a series of executive orders enacted by his predecessor to combat antisemitism.
Among the most controversial actions was Mamdani’s decision to undo New York City’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, a framework widely used by governments and law enforcement around the world to identify contemporary antisemitic behavior. The definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
Mamdani, the first Muslim mayor in New York City history, also nullified an order that opposed the campaign to boycott Israel. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which Mamdani openly supports, seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
Mamdani, who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career, is a supporter of boycotting all entities tied to Israel, has repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; routinely accuses Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; and failed to clearly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been used to call for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
Mamdani assumed office amid an alarming surge in antisemitic hate crimes across New York City over the last two years, following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
Jews were targeted in the majority (54 percent) of all hate crimes perpetrated in New York City in 2024, according to data issued by the NYPD. A recent report released in December by the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism noted that figure rose to a staggering 62 percent in the first quarter of 2025, despite Jewish New Yorkers comprising a small minority of the city’s population.
The NYPD shared the news about anti-Jewish hate crimes at the end of a press release on Monday that focused mostly on how last month was “the safest January ever” in New York City for gun violence, with the fewest shooting incidents and shooting victims in recorded history.
The city had 40 shooting incidents and 47 shooting victims in January, compared to the previous all-time low of 50 set in 2025. Murders also declined to their lowest level for January, surpassing the previous record of 22 set in 2018 and 2022. There were no murders in Manhattan or Staten Island for the month of January, and the number of murders declined in every single borough in New York.
The NYPD also said that retail theft was down 16 percent in January, burglary was at its lowest ever recorded in history for the month of January, and crime in school safety zones was reduced overall by more than 50 percent. However, reported rapes (167) increased in January compared to last year and transit crime increased for the month by 6.1 percent. Overall major crime reduced 6.7 percent across the city.
January ended with a man ramming his car repeatedly into the Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters in Brooklyn. The suspect, 36-year-old Dan Sohail, was arrested at the scene and charged with attempted assault as a hate crime, reckless endangerment as a hate crime, criminal mischief as a hate crime, and aggravated harassment.
Uncategorized
The Muppets are my rabbi, and they should be yours
You may have heard the refrain that we live in dark times. It is true.
Just as true is that nothing is as effective at combatting darkness as joy. It is an emotion essential to the art of envisioning better things. Which is why the return of The Muppet Show, for a Feb. 4 half-hour Disney special guest starring Sabrina Carpenter, is such a gift.
The universe of the Muppets is one in which everyone has a nice time, and everyone gets what they deserve. Miss Piggy gets the spotlight, although she sometimes needs to physically fight for it. The Great Gonzo gets every possible opportunity to make mayhem; sure, we’re told that his great passion is stunt work, but we all know that it’s actually chaos.
The guest star gets her pick of the best supporting cast in the world. I dare you to watch Carpenter perform with a chorus of embarrassed featherless chickens and tell me she’s ever been better. Statler and Waldorf, the two heckling old men watching the show from a luxurious private box, get the pleasure of eternal fodder for their own grumpiness.
And the audience: We get joy. Not the sophisticated kind of joy that comes from indulging in a thoughtful, nuanced work of art. Not the giddy, escapist kind that accompanies, say, a binge of Bridgerton. Instead, a quieter and purer form: something like the joy of childhood.
The Muppet Show is for adults, people who might giggle when Carpenter tells Kermit that she turned down a second date with a mystery man to take the guest star gig, then cheerfully confirms that said mystery man is not single. But it’s also for adults who are, perhaps, just a bit tired of being adults. It’s for grownups who find themselves in need of the anarchy that belongs to those who are small and have no responsibilities — a description equally fitting for most children, and most Muppets.
One of the most maligned passages in the Torah describes the starkest form of retributive justice imaginable: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” In that eminently silly outline for organizing a functional human society is a kernel of wisdom: When someone does something bad that upsets you, it’s natural to want to retaliate in kind.
What is healthiest, the Muppet Show teaches, is not to ignore that instinct, but instead to honor it in a way that hurts no one. That principle proves fairly easy for the Muppets, who have no teeth and an apparent ability to endlessly regenerate their own eyes, as modeled by Beeker in this special.
But the Muppets’ philosophy of meeting the outrageous with the outrageous, the unhinged with the unhinged and the grouchy with the grouchy has its lessons for us humans, too.
There is such havoc in the world around us, such an arbitrary allocation of justice, such a terrifying sense that the wheels on this thing are about to come off. On The Muppet Show, there’s no “about” about it. The wheels are off; the rules are out the window; the toothless are in charge. There is anarchy outside the theater, in the human world full of horrors, and anarchy within it, in the soft puppet world full of rats performing covers of Top 40 hits with a reluctant pigeon playing keyboards.
We can’t easily fix the world’s troubles, but we can’t ignore the effect they have on us either. To do so is to take a tremendous risk. Any feeling held inside for too long risks exploding, and as many of the Great Gonzo’s tricks demonstrate, explosions tend to make things worse, if occasionally also hilarious.
Instead of risking a conflagration, then, perhaps you might instead take refuge in a safe puppet world, where a frog can get crushed by a door — please refer to what I said about Miss Piggy fighting for the spotlight — and emerge perfectly well, if slightly crumpled.
These days, rage simmers in most of us. We can no more curb this part of our humanity than Statler and Waldorf can curb the Muppets’ inevitable bent toward disorder. But we can treat it with good humor. That’s the greatest good of Muppetland. There, our worst instincts are recognized, but stripped of violence, so we can laugh at them.
If you are Sabrina Carpenter and some Muppets are harassing you, just knock their heads together. If you’re in the audience, go ahead and chortle at them. They’re made of felt, they’ll be fine.
The post The Muppets are my rabbi, and they should be yours appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
“My singing in Yiddish has nothing to do with nostalgia“
ס׳איז לעצטנס אַרויס די אויטאָביאָגראַפֿיע פֿון דער באַרימטער ישׂראלדיקער זינגערין חוה אַלבערשטיין, אויף העברעיִש, וואָס נעמט אַרײַן אַ קאַפּיטל וועגן איר פֿאַרבינדונג צו דער ייִדישער שפּראַך. אָט איז אַן אויסצוג, איבערגעזעצט אויף ייִדיש פון בני מער.
חוהלאַנד
פֿון די ערשטע לידער וואָס איך האָב אָנגעהויבן זינגען אויף ייִדיש, האָב איך געשאַפֿן אַ וועלט פֿאַר זיך. נדבֿ* האָט עס גערופֿן „חוהלאַנד“. עס האָט גאָרנישט צו טאָן מיט נאָסטאַלגיע. מײַנע באָבעס, וואָס איך האָב נישט זוכה געווען צו קענען, האָבן די לידער נישט געזונגען.
בײַ אונדז אין שטוב האָט מען נישט געזונגען אויף ייִדיש – דאָס האָב איך אַליין אויסגעוויילט, און נישט תּמיד פֿאַרשטיי איך מיין אויסוויילונג. אפֿשר איז עס אַ מין פֿאַרעקשנטער פּרוּוו צו לעבן ווי עס וואָלט קיינמאָל נישט געווען קיין חורבן, ווי עס וואָלט קיינמאָל נישט צעשטערט געוואָרן די וועלט, און מענטשן ליבן זיך אין ייִדיש, קינדער שטיפֿן אויף ייִדיש און מיידלעך חלומען אין ייִדיש. אין מײַן אויסגעוויילטער וועלט, גייט דאָס לעבן ווײַטער, העברעיִש און ייִדיש לעבן בשלום און נײַע לידער ווערן געשריבן. אפֿשר דערפֿאַר איז מיר שווער אײַנצולאַדן געסט אין מײַן וועלט. זיי זעען עס נישט און קאָנען במילא נישט פֿאַרשטיין. ייִדיש איז מײַן היימישע פֿאַנטאַזיע.
„רבנו תּם“
מײַנע עלטערן האָבן ליב געהאַט צו הערן יעדן פֿרײַטיק צו־נאַכטס די ייִדישע פּראָגראַם אויפֿן ראַדיאָ, „קול ציון לגולה“. די גאַנצע וואָך האָט מען דאָרטן גערעדט וועגן פּאָליטיק, אָבער פֿרײַטיק־צו־נאַכטס איז געווען איבערגעגעבן דער קולטור. דאָ האָב איך צום ערשטן מאָל געהערט ווי זינגערס טרעטן אויף אויף ייִדיש – קודם-כּל סידאָר בעלאַרסקי, וואָס מײַנע עלטערן האָבן אים גערופֿן „דער נודניק“, ווײַל ער האָט אָנגעצויגען די ווערטער, און דערצו משה אוישער און יאַן פּירס. דער ראַדיאָ האָט אויך טראַנסמיטירט מאָנאָלאָגן פֿון יוסף בולאָוו, דינה האַלפּערן, יאָנאַס טורקאָוו און אידאַ קאַמינסקאַ. אָבער מײַן טאַטנס ליבלינג איז געווען נח נאַכבוש, וואָס האָט געהאַט אַ באַזונדערן אופֿן פֿון דעקלאַמירן, אַ חנוודיק געמיש פֿון אַ דרשה און פּאָעזיע. פֿון נאַכבושס מויל האָב איך צום ערשטן מאָל געהערט דאָס ליד „רבנו תּם“ פֿון איציק מאַנגער, וואָס איז געוואָרן מײַן שלאַגער.
אין דער פּראָגראַם האָט מען אויך געהערט דזשיגאַן און שומאַכער, און מיר אַלע האָבן געהאַלטן אַז זיי זײַנען די שענסטע און די בעסטע. זייערע סקיצעס האָבן מיר אַלע געקענט פֿון אויסנווייניק. מיט אַ סך יאָר שפּעטער, אין 1975, האָב איך אָנטייל גענומען אין אַ טעלעוויזיע-פּראָגראַם לכּבֿוד דזשיגאַן, און געזונגען צוזאַמען מיט אים „רבנו תּם“.
וועגן דעם ליד דערציילט דזשיגאַן אין זײַן אויטאָביאָגראַפֿיע, אַז אין דער צײַט פֿון דער קריג האָט זיך דער קאָמענדאַנט פֿון גולאַג פֿאַרליבט אינעם ליד, און געבעטן זיי זאָלן עס זינגען ווידער און ווידער. צוליב דעם ליד האָבן זיי באַקומען פֿאַרשיידענע פּריווילעגיעס, און אָט בין איך, דרײַסיק יאָר שפּעטער, זוכה געווען דאָס צו זינגען.
צי לערנען זיך צי ניט
מײַן טאַטע האָט גערופֿן זײַנע בני-דור, די וואָס די מלחמה האָט צעשטערט זייער לעבן און זייערע חלומות, „די נישט־פֿאַרענדיקטע סימפֿאָניע“. מײַנע עלטערן האָבן שטאַרק געוואָלט איך זאָל זיך לערנען אין אוניווערסיטעט, און איך אַליין האָב געמיינט אַז ווערן אַ זינגערין איז נישט פֿאַר מיר. דערפֿאַר האָב איך באַשלאָסן צו שטודירן ייִדישע און העברעיִשע ליטעראַטור אין העברעיִשן אוניווערסיטעט אין ירושלים. כ׳האָב געדונען אַ דירה אין בית-הכּרם צוזאַמען מיט מײַן חבֿרטע מרים גאָלדמאַן, וואָס האָט שטודירט יוסטיץ. במשך פֿונעם ירושלימער פֿראָסט און די געהייצטע קלאַסן האָב איך אָפֿט אײַנגעדרימלט. איך האָב יאָ הנאה געהאַט פֿון די לימודים אין דער ייִדישער אָפּטיילונג, אָבער דאָס האַרץ האָט געבענקט נאָך מוזיק. דערפֿאַר האָב איך גערעדט מיטן ראש פֿון די ייִדישע לימודים, חנא שמערוק וועגן מײַנע ספֿקות. ער האָט שוין געוווּסט אַז איך זינג אויף ייִדיש, און געזאָגט אַז אויך דאָס וואָס איך טו איז וויכטיק. דאָס הייסט, איך האָב באַקומען זײַן הסכּמה.
מײַק בורשטיין
נאָכן אָנהייבן שפּילן אין „די מגילה־לידער“ פֿון איציק מאַנגער אין ישׂראל אין 1966 און דעם אַרויסלאָזן דעם ישׂראלדיקן פֿילם „קונילעמל“ אין 1966, איז דער אַקטיאָר מײַק בורשטיין געוואָרן אַן אמתער סטאַר. אונדזער פּראָדוצענט האָט געהאַלטן אַז צוויי זינגערס וואָס זינגען אויף ייִדיש מוזן זינגען צוזאַמען. געזאָגט און געטאָן. מיר האָבן אויסגעקליבן עטלעכע דועטן פֿון מרדכי געבירטיג, וואָס האָט אַזוי שיין געשילדערט זײַנע העלדן: דערוואַקסענע, קינדער און אַלטע לײַט. די גאַנצע ייִדישע וועלט פֿון פֿאַר דער קריג איז אַרײַן אין זײַנע לידער: צוויי קינדער וואָס גייען אין חדר אָן חשק, און חלשן פֿאַר אַ ביסל נאַטור; אַ בחור און אַ מיידל וואָס האָבן מורא פֿאַר דער צוקונפֿט; אַן אַלט פּאָרפֿאָלק וואָס בענקט נאָך זייערע קינדעריאָרן אאַז״וו.
מײַקס טאַטע, פּסחקע בורשטיין, האָט געקענט געבירטיגן, און מײַק אַליין האָט גוט געקענט די לידער, האָבן מיר ביידע רעקאָרדירט געבירטיגס לידער. דער וווּנדערלעכער קאָמפּאָזיטאָר שמעון כּהן האָט באַאַרבעט די לידער, און געקוועלט פֿון דער מוזיק. בכלל, יעדעס מאָל ווען איך האָב רעקאָרדירט ייִדישע לידער, האָט מען געפֿילט אין סטודיאָ אַ מין באַגײַסטערונג, אַזוי ווי אַלע וואָלטן אָנטייל גענומען אין דער געהיימער און הייליקער אַרבעט.
אויף דער הילע פֿונעם אַלבאָם זעט מען אונדז ביידן שטיין אין אַ גאָרטן פֿול מיט בלומען, אָנשפּאַרנדיק זיך אויף אַ בוים – אַזוי יונג זײַנען מיר געווען.
דרײַ ייִדן מאַרשירן אין שאַנז-עליזע
באַלד נאָך דער זעקס-טאָגיקער מלחמה אין 1967 האָט מען מיר אײַנגעלאַדן אַרויסצוטרעטן אין בוענאָס־אײַרעס. פֿאַרשטייט זיך, האָט מען מיר געבעטן זינגען „ירושלים של זהבֿ“ (ירושלים שטאָט פֿון גאָלד), דאָס נײַע ליד פֿון נעמי שמר. אויפֿן וועג קיין אַרגענטינע בין איך געבליבן אַ שטיק צײַט אין פּאַריז, און כ׳בין געפֿאָרן באַזוכן מײַן טאַטנס אַ פֿרײַנד, וואָס האָט געאַרבעט פֿאַר דער מלחמה ווי אַ טריקאָ-וועבער. זײַן נאָמען איז געווען אַבֿרהם סלוכאָצקי, און זײַן צונאָמען – „דער פּאַרטיזאַנער“. זײַן פֿרוי און זײַן זון זײַנען אומגעקומען, און ער איז איינער אַליין אַוועק אין די וועלדער. איך האָב געקלעטערט אומצאָליקע טרעפּ ביז אַ קליינעם בוידעם, וווּ ער האָט געוווינט. ער האָט געהאַט אַ קליינע טריקאָ-מאַשין און געאַרבעט אין דעם וואָס די פּאַריזער ייִדן האָבן גערופֿן דאָס „שמאַטעס געשעפֿט“.
אַבֿרום סלוכאָצקי האָט אײַנגעלאַדן נאָך אַ באַקאַנטן, און מיר זײַנען געגאַנגען שפּאַצירן זאַלבע דריט. איך וועל קיינמאָל נישט פֿאַרגעסןדאָס טײַערע בילד: מיר, דרײַ קליינע מענטשלעך, אײַנהגעהילט אין שווערע שוואַרצע מאַנטלען, גייען אין די גאַסן פֿון פּאַריז, וואָס זײַנען געווען פּרעכטיק באַלויכטן לכּבוד ניטל. מיר זײַנען געגאַנען אָנגאַזשע, איך צווישן די צוויי האַרציקע זקנים, וואָס האָבן שוין געוווּסט אַז אַלבערשטיינס טאָכטער זינגט אויף ייִדיש; צוויי צעבראָכענע מענטשן, וואָס האָבן אַלץ פֿאַרלוירן, דאָס גאַנצע לעבן. און אבֿרום דער פּאַרטיזאַן ווײַזט מיר אָן: „זעסט, חוהלע, דאָס איז אונדזער שאַנז-עליזע.“ יעדעס מאָל, ווען איך זע פֿאַר מיר דאָס בילד, באַווײַזן זיך טרערן אין מײַנע אויגן. דער כּוח פֿון לעבן. אייראָפּע האָט זיי צעבראָכן און געמוטשעט, און זיי שטאָלצירן נאָך אַלץ מיט איר און פֿילן זיך ווי אין דער היים.
„דער פֿעטער עליע“
צוריק פֿון אַרגענטינע האָב איך באַזוכט ניו-יאָרק. איך בין אײַנגעשטאַנען בײַ באַקאַנטע פֿון מײַנע עלטערן אין קווינס. מײַן אויפֿגאַבע איז געווען צו געפֿינען נח נאַכבוש. איך האָב זיך אַרומגעדרייט אין די גאַסן פֿון דער איסט-סײַד, און אין איינעם אַן עלעקטריע־געשעפֿט האָב איך געפֿונען פּלאַטעס פֿון אים. האָב איך געפֿרעגט דעם קרעמער צי ער קען אים, און ער האָט מיר געשיקט אין אַ מושבֿ־זקנים אין סיגייט, ברוקלין. עס איז געווען אַ פֿראָסטיקער אָוונט, און איך בין דאָרטן געפֿאָרן מיט אַ טאַקסי. עס איז געווען אַ מין דאָרף באַזעצט מיט אַלטע ייִדן. נח נאַכבוש איז געווען זייער איבערראַרשט און באַגײַסטערט, און ער האָט מיר געגעבן נאָך עטלעכע פּלאַטעס. אין איינער פֿון די פּלאַטעס האָב איך געפֿונען אַ ליד וואָס האָט מיך באַצויבערט, „דער פֿעטער עליע“ (יורם טהרלבֿ האָט עס איבערגעזעצט ווי „עץ הכוכבים“). דערנאָך האָב איך זיך דערוווּסט אַז דער מחבר פֿון ליד, לייב מאָרגנטוי, לעבט אין ישׂראל, אין דער שטאָט חולון, און מיר האָבן זיך געטראָפֿן.
„צו פרי איז אונדז צו שווײַגן“
נישט איין מאָל האָבן מיר, נדבֿ און איך, גערעדט פֿון אַ פֿילם וועגן ייִדיש. מיר האָבן אַפֿילו אָנגעהויבן פֿילמירן די פֿאַרווערטס־רעדאַקציע אין ניו-יאָרק, אָבער אַזאַ פֿילם קאָסט דאָך אַ סך, און מיר האָבן נישט געהאַט די געהעריקע מעגלעכקייטן. דער חלום פֿון אַ פֿילם וועגן ייִדיש איז כּמעט פֿאַרשוווּנדן, אָבער פּלוצעם איז מיר אײַנגעפֿאַלן: עס זײַנען שוין פֿאַראַן אַ סך פֿילמען וועגן דער ייִדישער שפּראַך, אָבער זעלטן קאָן מען הערן ווי מע רעדט די ייִדישע שפּראַך גופֿא. האָב איך באַשלאָסן, איך וועל גיין צו די לעצטע דיכטערס וואָס שרײַבן ייִדיש אין ישׂראל, און בעטן זיי זאָלן מיר פֿאָרלייענען זייערע שאַפֿונגען, כּדי צו הערן זייער שיינע שפּראַך. און מיט אַמאָל איז דאָס געוואָרן דרינגענדיק. מײַן טאָכטער מאירה און נאָך אַנדערע האָבן מיר געהאָלפֿן, און מיר זײַנען געפֿאָרן און פֿילמירט פֿאַרשיידענע ייִדישע דיכטערס. עס איז געוואָרן אַ מין קליינע פֿילמירטע אַנטאָלאָגיע. מיר האָבן גערופֿן דעם פֿילם „מוקדם מדי לשתוק“ (צו פֿרי צו שווײַגן) גענומען פֿון אַ ליד פֿון בינעם העלער: „צו פֿרי איז אפֿשר נאָך פֿאַר אונדז צו שווײַגן / צו זינגען – איז שוין אפֿשר אויך צו שפּעט“ (פֿונעם ליד „אַ פֿויגל ווען ער שווײַגט“, אינעם בוך „זיי וועלן אויפֿשטיין“).
עס האָט זיך מיר געדאַכט אז מיט דעם האָב איך שוין אָפּגעצאָלט מײַן חובֿ צו ייִדיש, די שפּראַך וואָס איך רוף „מײַן באָבע“. בײַ אונדז, די קינדער פֿון די עולים, איז ייִדיש געווען אַ מיטל זיך צו באַקענען מיט די באָבעס און זיידעס וואָס מיר האָבן קיינמאָל ניט געקענט. דערנאָך האָב איך געפֿילט אַ ביסל לײַכטער, ווי מיר וואָלטן זיך געזעגנט.
„מײַן שוועסטער חיה“
ווען מען האָט פֿילמירט דעם פֿילם האָב איך געלייענט ערגעץ-וווּ אַז אין „בית לייוויק“ אין תּל-אבֿיבֿ וועט פֿאָרקומען אַ וואָרט-קאָנצערט מיט בינעם העלערס פֿרוי, הדסה קעסטין.. פֿאַרשטייט זיך, בין איך אַהין געפֿאָרן. צווישן די לידער וואָס הדסה קעסטין האָט דעקלאַמירט האָב איך געהערט צום ערשטן מאָל „מײַן שוועסטער חיה“, וואָס בינעם העלער האָט געשריבן וועגן זײַן אומגעקומענער שוועסטער. דערנאָך האָבן מיר פֿילמירט בינעם העלער בײַ זיך אין דער היים, און איך האָב געבעטן הדסהן זי זאָל פֿאָרלייענען דאָס ליד. די מינוטן וואָס זי לייענט עס אינעם פֿילם, בעת בינעם העלער זיצט לעבן איר, קאָן מען נישט פֿאַרגעסן. ווען מײַן שוויגער האָט געזען דעם פֿילם האָט זי מיר געזאָגט: „דו דאַרפֿסט שאַפֿן מוזיק פֿאַר דעם ליד.“ ֿ האָב איך זיך געחידושט: ווי אַזוי קאָן מען צופּאַסן אַ מעלאָדיע צו אַזאַ טראַגישליד, וואָס קוים קען מען זיך צוהערן צו דעם? פֿון דעסט וועגן האָב איך געפּרוווּט, און אַזוי איז דאָס ליד געבוירן געוואָרן.
* נדבֿ לויתן איז חווה אַלבערשטיינס מאַן
The post “My singing in Yiddish has nothing to do with nostalgia“ appeared first on The Forward.