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
Britain to Legislate to Tackle Threats From Hostile State Proxies After Wave of Antisemitic Attacks
Orthodox Jews stand by a police cordon, after a man was arrested following a stabbing incident in the Golders Green area, which is home to a large Jewish population, in London, Britain, April 29, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay
Britain will legislate to strengthen its ability to deal with proxies for malign state actors, taking powers to make it possible to ban them in light of increased activity in Britain and a rise in antisemitic attacks.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the government has to “deal with malign state actors” in the wake of a series of attacks on Britain‘s Jewish community.
In a speech outlining the government’s agenda, King Charles said it would “introduce legislation to tackle the growing threat from foreign state entities and their proxies,” and would also take urgent action to tackle antisemitism.
POSSIBLE BAN ON THE IRGC?
Several British lawmakers have called for the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The IRGC is an elite military force whose purpose is to protect Shi’ite Muslim clerical rule in Iran. It controls large parts of Iran’s economy.
While Starmer has not publicly named the IRGC as being the target of the legislation, in an introduction to the King’s Speech, he said that Britain would tackle extremism “including where it is sponsored by foreign powers that are hostile to the UK, such as Iran.”
The move comes after a spate of arson attacks on sites in London linked to the Jewish community and the targeting of Iranian dissidents, with police saying they were examining possible Iran links.
Britain‘s security chiefs have for years warned about threats from “hostile“ states such as Iran, Russia, and China, with a number of convictions of people who had been accused of carrying out spying or other offences on their behalf.
The new law would allow the government to specify state-backed organizations that threaten national security through espionage, sabotage, interference, or other means. A review last year found that Britain‘s existing framework had a legal difficulty in proscribing state entities.
There will be new offenses created for belonging to such organizations or raising support for them, and the government said that collectively the measures would create a “tougher operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies.”
The king’s speech also promised a new National Security Bill which would address those who were fixated on violence and planning mass killings, but were not obviously inspired by a particular ideology.
The new law would aim to criminalize the creation and sharing of the most harmful online material.
As part of an approach to align countering state threats with addressing terrorism risks, the bill would add “polygraph testing as an available license condition for state threat offenders,” the government said.
Uncategorized
‘Shame on Hollywood’: Cannes Jury Member Defends Actors ‘Backlisted’ for Anti-Israel Activism Over Gaza War
Workers set up a giant canvas of the official poster featuring actors Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon from Ridley Scott’s road movie “Thelma & Louise” on the facade of the Festival palace before the start of the 79th Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, May 10, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/ Marko Djurica
A jury member of the 79th Cannes Film Festival on Tuesday condemned the Hollywood film industry for “blacklisting” actors who have spoken out against Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip during the country’s war against Hamas terrorists controlling the enclave.
At the festival’s jury press conference, Cannes award-winning Scottish screenwriter Paul Laverty mentioned Susan Sarandon, Javier Bardem, and Mark Ruffalo, all three of whom have been outspoken in criticizing Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Sarandon’s character in “Thelma & Louise” is on the official 2026 Cannes poster.
“The Cannes Film Festival [and] the wonderful poster they have,” Laverty said at the end of the press conference on Tuesday, held before the opening of the film festival in France. “Absolutely iconic. Brilliant. And isn’t it fascinating to see some of them like Susan Sarandon, Javier Bardem, Mark Ruffalo blacklisted because of their views in opposing the murder of women and children in Gaza? Shame on Hollywood people who do that. My respect and total solidarity to them. They’re the best of us, and good luck to them.”
“I just hope we don’t get bombed now, because we’ve got this poster in Cannes,” the BAFTA winner added in conclusion.
Sarandon was dropped by her talent agency for castigating Israel while participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York City in November 2023. At the protest, the Oscar winner accused Israel of war crimes, encouraged others to have the “courage to speak out” in support of Palestinians, and compared the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel just weeks earlier to hardships Palestinians endure in Gaza.
She talked about the fallout with her agency during an interview in 2024, saying: “I was dropped by my agency, my projects were pulled. I’ve been used as an example of what not to do if you want to continue to work.” Earlier this year, Sarandon further spoke about being shunned in Hollywood for her views about the Israel-Hamas war.
“I was fired by my agency, specifically for marching and speaking out about Gaza, for asking for a ceasefire. And it became impossible for me to even be on television,” she said at a press conference in February before receiving a career achievement honor at the 40th Goya Awards in Spain. “I don’t know lately if it’s changed, but I couldn’t do any major film, anything connected with Hollywood. I found agents ultimately in England and in Italy, and I work there … I know this Italian director that just hired me — he was told not to hire me, so that’s still recently. He didn’t listen, but they had that conversation. Right now, I kind of specialize in tiny films with directors who have never directed, in independent films.”
At the Cannes jury press conference on Tuesday, Laverty further talked about Gaza in remarks about this year’s film festival.
“You see so much violence, genocide in Gaza and all these terrible things,” he said. “The idea of coming to a festival – which is a celebration of diversity, imagination, tenderness — when there’s such vulgar, vicious, systematic violence. The idea of attending to a festival where there’ll be contradiction and nuance and beauty and inspiration. It knocked me out, to be honest.”
Before the start of the Cannes Film Festival last year, more than 350 members of the film industry — including Bardem, Sarandon, Ruffalo, and Richard Gere — signed an open letter condemning the festival’s “silence” over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza targeting Hamas terrorists.
Emmy-winning actress Hannah Einbinder recently criticized Hollywood’s silence about the Israel-Hamas war during a guest appearance on an episode of Zeteo’s “Beyond Israelism” podcast that was released in full on Tuesday.
“It pisses me off,” said the “Hacks” actress. “Because I’m sitting here with [Algerian-Palestinian activist] Mahmoud [Khalil], who has so much to risk and who has risked so much who has sacrificed so much … And I look at these people who have absolutely every privilege imaginable to mankind and they cannot utter a single word. I guess it makes me naive, but I cannot understand it. I really can’t understand it. And I hear people say that they don’t know enough and I — I don’t, it’s like, OK, so what do you do all day?”
“People in Hollywood, unfortunately, need these issues to affect a white person for them to see it as relating to them,” she stated. “Like, they see Jimmy Kimmel getting taken off the air suddenly, they see Stephen Colbert’s show being canceled by CBS, which is owned by the Ellisons, and they go, ‘How could this possibly happen?’ And it’s like, we know how because we saw students and professors and journalists and authors and Palestinian folks be silenced and fired and expelled and imprisoned … it took it happening to these white men for people to be like, ‘Oh my God.’”
In her acceptance speech at the Emmys last year, Einbinder declared “Free Palestine.”
Uncategorized
Netanyahu Held Secret Meeting With Emirati President in the UAE During Iran War, PM’s Office Says
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a ceremony commemorating Israel’s Remembrance Day for fallen soldiers, or Yom HaZikaron, at the Military Cemetery on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, April 21, 2026. Photo: ILIA YEFIMOVICH/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United Arab Emirates and met the Emirati president during the war with Iran, the Prime Minister’s Office said on Wednesday in what would be their first confirmed meeting.
According to the statement, the meeting resulted in an “historic breakthrough” in relations between Israel and the UAE.
A source familiar with the meeting said Netanyahu and Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) met in Al-Ain, an oasis city by the Oman border, on March 26 and that their meeting lasted several hours.
The source said that Mossad Chief Dedi Barnea made at least two visits to the UAE during the war with Iran to coordinate military actions. The intelligence chief’s visit was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Especially after coming under attack during the Iran war, the UAE has strengthened its relationships with the United States and Israel, with which it opened ties in the 2020 Abraham Accords. It views the relationship with Israel as a lever for regional influence and a unique channel to Washington.
Israel sent batteries for its Iron Dome interception system and personnel to operate them to the UAE during the war, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on Tuesday.
The UAE is a regional business and financial hub and one of Washington’s most important allies. It has pursued an assertive foreign policy and carved its own sphere of influence across the Middle East and Africa.
Iran‘s strikes on Gulf states in response to the US-Israeli attacks targeted the UAE more than its neighbors, hitting civilian infrastructure and energy facilities.
Unlike several Gulf peers, the UAE has a pipeline that allows it to divert some oil exports around the blockaded Strait of Hormuz, making it more able to withstand prolonged disruption. But the war risks severely damaging its role as a global economic center that offers security and ease in the region.