Uncategorized
Which side are you on: Jewish American or American Jew?
(JTA) — Earlier this month the New York Times convened what it called a “focus group of Jewish Americans.” I was struck briefly by that phrase — Jewish Americans — in part because the Times, like the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, tends to prefer “American Jews.”
It’s seemingly a distinction without a difference, although I know others might disagree. There is an argument that “American Jew” smacks of disloyalty, describing a Jew who happens to be American. “Jewish American,” according to this thinking, flips the script: an American who happens to be Jewish.
If pressed, I’d say I prefer “American Jew.” The noun “Jew” sounds, to my ear anyway, more direct and more assertive than the tentative adjective “Jewish.” It’s also consistent with the way JTA essentializes “Jew” in its coverage, as in British Jew, French Jew, LGBT Jew or Jew of color.
I wouldn’t have given further thought to the subject if not for a webinar last week given by Arnold Eisen, the chancellor emeritus at the Jewish Theological Seminary. In “Jewish-American, American-Jew: The Complexities and Joys of Living a Hyphenated Identity,” Eisen discussed how a debate over language is really about how Jews navigate between competing identities.
“What does the ‘American’ signify to us?” he asked. “What does the ‘Jewish’ signify and what is the nature of the relationship between the two? Is it a synthesis? Is it a tension, or a contradiction, or is it a blurring of the boundaries such that you can’t tell where one ends and the other begins?”
Questions like these, it turns out, have been asked since Jews and other immigrants first began flooding Ellis Island. Teddy Roosevelt complained in 1915 that “there is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans.” Woodrow Wilson liked to say that “any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of the Republic.” The two presidents were frankly freaked out about what we now call multiculturalism, convinced that America couldn’t survive a wave of immigrants with dual loyalties.
The two presidents lost the argument, and for much of the 20th century “hyphenated American” was shorthand for successful acculturation. While immigration hardliners continue to question the loyalty of minorities who claim more than one identity, and Donald Trump played with the politics of loyalty in remarks about Mexicans, Muslims and Jews, ethnic pride is as American as, well, St. Patrick’s Day. “I am the proud daughter of Indian immigrants,” former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said in announcing her run for the Republican presidential nomination this month.
For Jews, however, the hyphen became what philosophy professor Berel Lang called “a weighty symbol of the divided life of Diaspora Jewry.” Jewishness isn’t a distant country with quaint customs, but a religion and a portable identity that lives uneasily alongside your nationality. In a 2005 essay, Lang argued that on either side of the hyphen were “vying traditions or allegiances,” with the Jew constantly confronted with a choice between the American side, or assimilation, and the Jewish side, or remaining distinct.
Eisen calls this the “question of Jewish difference.” Eisen grew up in an observant Jewish family in Philadelphia, and understood from an early age that his family was different from their Vietnamese-, Italian-, Ukrainian- and African-American neighbors. On the other hand, they were all the same — that is, American — because they were all hyphenated. “Being parallel to all these other differences, gave me my place in the city and in the country,” he said.
In college he studied the Jewish heavy hitters who were less sanguine about the integration of American and Jewish identities. Eisen calls Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the renegade theologian at JTS, “the thinker who really made this question uppermost for American Jews.” Kaplan wrote in 1934 that Jewishness could only survive as a “subordinate civilization” in the United States, and that the “Jew in America will be first and foremost an American, and only secondarily a Jew.”
Kaplan’s prescription was a maximum effort on the part of Jews to “save the otherness of Jewish life” – not just through synagogue, but through a Jewish “civilization” expressed in social relationships, leisure activities and a traditional moral and ethical code.
Of course, Kaplan also understood that there was another way to protect Jewish distinctiveness: move to Israel.
A poster issued by the National Industrial Conservation Movement in 1917 warns that the American war effort might be harmed by a “hyphen of disloyalty,” suggesting immigrants with ties to their homelands were working to aid the enemy. (Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress)
The political scientist Charles Liebman, in “The Ambivalent American Jew” (1973), argued that Jews in the United States were torn between surviving as a distinct ethnic group and integrating into the larger society.
According to Eisen, Liebman believed that “Jews who make ‘Jewish’ the adjective and ‘American’ the noun tend to fall on the integration side of the hyphen. And Jews who make ‘Jew’ the noun and ‘American’ the adjective tend to fall on the survival side of the hyphen.”
Eisen, a professor of Jewish thought at JTS, noted that the challenge of the hyphen was felt by rabbis on opposite ends of the theological spectrum. He cited Eugene Borowitz, the influential Reform rabbi, who suggested in 1973 that Jews in the United States “are actually more Jewish on the inside than they pretend to be on the outside. In other words, we’re so worried about what Liebman called integration into America that we hide our distinctiveness.” Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the leading Modern Orthodox thinker of his generation, despaired that the United States presented its Jews with an unresolvable conflict between the person of faith and the person of secular culture.
When I read the texts Eisen shared, I see 20th-century Jewish men who doubted Jews who could be fully at home in America and at home with themselves as Jews (let alone as Jews who weren’t straight or white — which would demand a few more hyphens). They couldn’t imagine a rich Jewishness that didn’t exist as a counterculture, the way Cynthia Ozick wondered what it would be like to “think as a Jew” in a non-Jewish language like English.
They couldn’t picture the hyphen as a plus sign, which pulled the words “Jewish” and “American” together.
Recent trends support the skeptics. Look at Judaism’s Conservative movement, whose rabbis are trained at JTS, and which has long tried to reconcile Jewish literacy and observance with the American mainstream. It’s shrinking, losing market share and followers both to Reform – where the American side of the hyphen is ascendant — and to Orthodoxy, where Jewish otherness is booming in places like Brooklyn and Lakewood, New Jersey. And the Jewish “nones” — those opting out of religion, synagogue and active engagement in Jewish institutions and affairs — are among the fastest-growing segments of American Jewish life.
Eisen appears more optimistic about a hyphenated Jewish identity, although he insists that it takes work to cultivate the Jewish side. “I don’t think there’s anything at stake necessarily on which side of the hyphen you put the Jewish on,” he said. “But if you don’t go out of your way to put added weight on the Jewish in the natural course of events, as Kaplan said correctly 100 years ago, the American will win.”
—
The post Which side are you on: Jewish American or American Jew? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Condemnation and Applause in Latin America after US Seizes Venezuela’s Maduro
Venezuelans gather to celebrate, after US President Donald Trump said that the US attacked Venezuela and deposed its President Nicolas Maduro, in Santiago, Chile January 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Pablo Sanhueza
Latin American leaders were divided between condemnation and jubilation in the wake of a surprise attack on Venezuela early on Saturday that US President Donald Trump said resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
While much of the region has long been wary of a return to US interventions throughout the 20th century that helped install authoritarian governments from Chile to Honduras, Maduro – who presided over his country’s social and economic collapse – was an increasingly unpopular and isolated leader.
Many Latin American countries have also experienced a shift in recent elections to more right-leaning governments, many of whose leaders view the US-backed military regimes of the last century as necessary bulwarks against socialism.
In a sign of the economic pain faced under Maduro, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2018, with 85 percent of them migrating to neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the UN’s International Organization for Migration.
Many countries in the region have experienced surges in organized crime in recent years and the specter of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang has loomed large over voters’ minds, leading to a rise in politicians vowing to crack down on crime and immigration.
While few leaders will shed serious tears about Maduro’s ousting, governments in the region will react along political lines, said Steven Levitsky, a professor and director of Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.
“I think you’ll see right-wing governments applaud because that’s what they do. You’ll see left-wing governments criticize because how could they not?” Levitsky said.
REACTIONS SPLIT ALONG IDEOLOGY
The strongest condemnation of the attack came in a string of posts on X from neighboring Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, a leftist who has frequently clashed with Trump and has also been threatened by the US president.
“The Colombian government rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” Petro said in one message, while calling for an immediate meeting of the United Nations Security Council, of which Colombia is a member.
His Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, echoed Petro’s comments.
“The bombings on Venezuela’s territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line,” Lula said in a statement.
Chile’s outgoing President Gabriel Boric condemned the attack but President-elect Jose Antonio Kast, who rose to power by promising to crack down on migration and crime, said in a post on X that Maduro’s arrest was great news for the region.
“Now begins a greater task. The governments of Latin America must ensure that the entire apparatus of the regime abandons power and is held accountable,” said Kast, who will be sworn in on March 11.
In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum also condemned the US intervention in Venezuela. Asked about comments Trump made on Saturday to Fox News, when he said the US has offered to “take out the cartels” in Mexico and that “we have to do something,” Sheinbaum replied that Mexico has a very good relationship with the US on security matters.
ARGENTINA, ECUADOR BACK ACTION
Argentina’s President Javier Milei, Trump’s closest ally in the region, has long criticized Maduro and posted videos and statements on X in favor of the attack.
In Ecuador, right-wing President Daniel Noboa said Venezuelans opposed to Maduro and his political godfather Hugo Chavez have an ally in Ecuador.
“All the criminal narco-Chavistas will have their moment,” Noboa said on X. “Their structure will finally collapse across the continent.”
Protests both in favor and against the strikes in Venezuela have been scheduled in Buenos Aires and other cities across the region.
The capture of Maduro by US forces “is one of the most momentous decisions in the history of US-Latin America relations,” said Brian Winter, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and vice president of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas.
“The operation confirms return of Washington as policeman in its ‘sphere of influence,’ an idea that defined much of 19th and 20th centuries but had faded since (the) end of the Cold War,” Winter said in a post on LinkedIn.
Uncategorized
Democratic US Lawmakers Say They Were Misled on Venezuela, Demand a Plan
US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) holds a press conference in the US Capitol in Washington, DC, April 23, 2024. Photo: Annabelle Gordon / CNP/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Democratic members of the US Congress said on Saturday that senior officials of President Donald Trump‘s administration had misled them during recent briefings about plans for Venezuela by insisting they were not planning regime change in Caracas.
The US attacked Venezuela and deposed its long-serving President Nicolas Maduro in an overnight operation, in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, said he had been told in three classified briefings that the administration was not pursuing regime change or planning to take military action in Venezuela.
“They assured me that they were not pursuing those things,” Schumer said on a call with reporters. “Clearly they’re not being straight with the American people.”
Schumer said he had not been briefed by Saturday afternoon and called for the administration to fill in not just congressional and intelligence committee leaders, but also all lawmakers by early next week.
“They’ve kept everyone in the total dark,” he said.
Lawmakers said they wanted more guidance on Trump‘s plans for Venezuela, after he told reporters he would put the country under US control, for now.
“No serious plan has been presented for how such an extraordinary undertaking would work or what it will cost the American people. History offers no shortage of warnings about the costs – human, strategic, and moral – of assuming we can govern another nation by force,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Senate is due to vote next week on whether to block further military action against Venezuela without congressional approval.
In briefings in November and December by officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, lawmakers said they were told repeatedly that there were no plans for a land invasion inside Venezuela and that the administration was not focused on regime change.
“Instead, the Administration consistently misled the American people and their elected representatives,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.
The Pentagon, State Department and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
SOME LAWMAKERS SAY ADMINISTRATION LIED
Several lawmakers said they felt they had been lied to.
“The Administration lied to Congress and launched an illegal war for regime change and oil,” Democratic Representative Don Beyer of Virginia said on X. Beyer’s district includes the Pentagon, just across the river from Washington.
At a news conference on Saturday, Trump said Congress had not been kept fully informed because of concerns that word about his plans would get out. “Congress does have a tendency to leak,” Trump told reporters.
Members of Congress, including some of Trump‘s fellow Republicans as well as Democrats, had been clamoring for more information about his strategy toward the oil-rich South American nation since September, when he began a military build-up in the Caribbean and ordered strikes on boats he said were carrying drugs.
“When we had briefings on Venezuela, we asked, ‘Are you going to invade the country?’ We were told no. ‘Do you plan to put troops on the ground?’ We were told no. ‘Do you intend regime change in Venezuela?’ We were told no,” Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said on CNN. “So in a sense, we have been briefed, we’ve just been completely lied to.”
Lawmakers said they were not briefed before the operation, although Rubio called some members of Congress after it took place. There were no briefings for lawmakers scheduled by Saturday afternoon. Republican congressional leaders said they hoped to arrange some after lawmakers return to Washington on January 5 following their year-end recess.
Most Republicans praised Trump‘s action and have declined to discuss what has been said in classified briefings.
“President Trump‘s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” said Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota.
Members of Congress have long accused presidents from both parties of seeking to sidestep the Constitution’s requirement that Congress, not the president, approve anything other than brief and limited military action needed to defend the United States.
Uncategorized
Israeli Leadership Hails Trump for ‘Brave, Brilliant’ Venezuela Operation
Photo of Maduro in U.S. custody shared by Trump. Photo: i24 illustration.
i24 News – Israel’s prime minister and foreign minister issued high praise to US President Donald Trump following the successful operation on Saturday to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
“Israel commends the United States’ operation, led by President Trump, which acted as the leader of the free world,” Gideon Sa’ar, the Jewish state’s top diplomat, wrote on social media. “At this historic moment, Israel stands alongside the freedom-loving Venezuelan people, who have suffered under Maduro’s illegal tyranny.”
“Israel welcomes the removal of the dictator who led a network of drugs and terror and hopes for the return of democracy to the country and for friendly relations between the states,” he further added.
The statement came hours after Maduro and his wife were seized in an overnight operation.
“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, hailed Trump’s “bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice.”
“I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers,” the premier added.