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
Sovereignty Is the Soul of Democracy
A general view shows the plenum at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Democracy is often invoked as a slogan, yet rarely defined with precision. It is more than elections and campaign rallies. A true democracy rests on institutions that limit power, protect minorities, and uphold the rule of law even when it is politically inconvenient. A democracy requires an independent judiciary, a free press, and leaders who understand that their authority is temporary and constrained by law. Above all, democracy requires sovereignty: a nation must be free to govern itself.
By all of these standards, Israel stands as one of the most dynamic democracies in the world.
Israel’s parliamentary system is frequently misunderstood, particularly by observers accustomed to the American two party structure. Unlike the United States, Israel’s multi-party parliamentary democracy allows a wide range of political voices to enter the Knesset.
Coalition governments are formed through negotiation and compromise. This system may appear fragmented to outsiders, but in truth, it reflects a deeper level of representation. Communities that would be marginalized in a two-party structure can influence national policy. Power is dispersed rather than concentrated.
That dispersion of power is a democratic strength.
It also explains why Israel’s institutions continue to work, even amid intense political debate. The country has seen repeated elections, coalition collapses, and fierce public protests. Yet the army remains under civilian control. The courts continue their work. The press operates freely. These are not signs of instability. They are signs of democratic strength.
The legal proceedings involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offer a powerful illustration. Whatever one’s political view of Netanyahu, the fact that a sitting prime minister can face prosecution demonstrates the independence of Israel’s judiciary. In much of the Middle East, leaders are untouchable. In Israel, no one is above the law. The trial proceeds through established legal channels, with the defense and prosecution presenting their arguments before judges bound by statute.
President Trump recently urged Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Netanyahu. President Herzog responded appropriately. He emphasized that he is the president of Israel and that any pardon request would be considered only after legal proceedings conclude, in accordance with the law. That response was not defiance. It was democratic clarity.
Sovereignty is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the bedrock of self government. Critics frequently scrutinize Israel’s democracy, often holding it to standards not applied elsewhere in the region. Yet Israel remains the only state in the Middle East where self government actually happens — where civil society is vibrant, protest is protected, and the media is relentless.
Democracy is not the absence of controversy. It is the presence of functioning institutions capable of withstanding controversy.
Israel’s strength lies not only in its military or technological achievements but in its commitment to law and accountable governance.
Sovereignty is not negotiable. It is the soul of democracy itself.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson Did Not Even Leave the Airport During Quick Israel Visit to Interview Mike Huckabee
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Controversial podcaster Tucker Carlson spent only a few hours in Israel on Wednesday to interview US Ambassador Mike Huckabee and chose not to leave the Ben Gurion Airport complex before flying out of the Jewish state, of which he has been strident critic.
Carlson landed at the airport on a private flight, did not leave the premises while interviewing Huckabee, and then immediately returned to Europe, Israel’s Channel 14 reported.
Sources also confirmed to the Jerusalem Post that the visit went as planned: short and confined to Ben Gurion Airport with Carlson arriving and leaving on private flights.
Channel 14 correspondent Libby Alon noted on the social media platform X that Carlson opted not to spend time any time in the country “despite all the invitations from the Christian community in Israel.”
Carlson, who describes himself as an ardent Christian, has falsely accused Israel, whose Christian population is growing and well educated, of persecuting Christians. Critics have noted that the far-right media personality has seemingly devoted more time on his podcast to targeting Israel over its treatment of Christians than to other parts of the world, such as Nigeria, where Christians are being murdered and otherwise persecuted in large numbers.
On Wednesday, Carlson posted a “Greetings from Israel” message on X which included a photo of himself with his left arm over the shoulder of an unnamed man, both standing in front of fluttering Israeli flags.
Greetings from Israel. pic.twitter.com/1uBWvqBNST
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 18, 2026
Online disagreements between Carlson and Huckabee over allegations of Israel mistreating Christians had prompted the quick trip.
On Feb. 4, Carlson published a nearly 90-minute podcast on X, titled “Christian Persecution,” which he promoted by asking, “How does the US-funded Israeli government treat Christians in the Holy Land? We asked some. Listen carefully to their accounts. This will shock you.” He interviewed Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem Hosam Naoum and Saad Mouasher, a Christian businessman in Jordan who serves as the chairman of Jordan Ahli Bank.
Carlson then highlighted such segments in his discussions as “The Christian Hospital in Gaza That Was Bombed Eight Times by Israel,” “How Many People Have Been Killed in Gaza?” “How Are Christians Treated in Israel?” “How Much Has Jewish Extremism Increased in Jerusalem?” “Why Israel Makes It Difficult for Christians to Visit Holy Sites,” and “Why Christians Are Safer in Jordan Than Israel.”
Huckabee shared Carlson’s X posting that day and responded on top of it: “Hey @TuckerCarlson instead of talking ABOUT me, why don’t you come talk TO me? You seem to be generating a lot of heat about the Middle East. Why be afraid of the light?”
Answering back, Carlson shared Huckabee’s post and wrote, “Thanks for this. I’d love to. We’ll reach out to your office today to set up an interview. Much appreciated.”
Carlson’s apparent eagerness to escape Israel contrasts with his enthusiasm for countries which he celebrates rather than criticizes. On Feb. 8, 2024, for example, Carlson published a more than two-hour episode featuring an interview with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, the authoritarian leader whose invasion to conquer Ukraine has now resulted in nearly 600,000 Ukrainian casualties and 1.2 million Russian soldiers’ deaths. According to reports, Carlson conducted the interview on Feb. 6 after arriving on Feb. 3.
Qatar received an enthusiastic endorsement last year from Carlson. On Dec. 7, Carlson interviewed Qatar Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani at the Doha Forum, where he revealed his plans to purchase a home in the desert monarchy known for its longstanding support of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
“I have been criticized as being a tool of Qatar, and I just want to say, which you already know, I have never taken anything from your country and don’t plan to. I am, however, tomorrow buying a place in Qatar,” he said.
On Feb. 11, Carlson published an interview with Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman, paleo-libertarian advocate, presidential candidate, and longtime opponent of Israel who previously said that “Palestinians are virtually in a concentration camp.”
A study released in December by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) analyzed podcast transcripts from Carlson and fellow far-right podcast host Candace Owens, finding that both had increased their content targeting Israel in 2025.
The researchers identified April as the turning point for Carlson’s refocusing on Israel, and that “the share of negative content about Israel rose sharply from 48.9% in the previous six-month period to 70.3% over the last six months.”
Some of Carlson’s decisions last year which drew the most attention included his promotion of Nick Fuentes, the white supremacist podcaster who has praised Adolf Hitler, celebrated Hamas, and advocated rape. This provoked a revolt at the Heritage Foundation with multiple resignations after its president, Kevin Roberts, defended Carlson.
Carlson also got in on the game started by Owens of blaming Israel for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, while throwing in some traditional collective blame against Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.
In a Jan. 30 interview with podcast host Piers Morgan, Jeremy Boreing, the co-founder and former co-CEO of The Daily Wire, explained the distinction he saw between Owens — who he had previously hired — and Carlson.
“I’d be careful not to conflate Candace Owens — who is sort of the queen of the Grift Industrial Complex — with Tucker Carlson, who — like him or leave him — is engaged in an actual political project,” Boreing said. “As far as I can tell, Tucker is trying to create a new American majority out of a sort of amalgamation of left-wing economic populism on the one hand and right-wing social populism on the other.”
Describing the scope of the two podcasters’ apparent ambitions, Boreing called Carlson “actively engaged behind the scenes at the White House and staffing decisions,” stating that “he wields his influence to try to effectuate a political end.”
In a Jan. 28 interview on the “Triggernometry” podcast, Boreing expanded on the point, saying that Carlson “is part of a small cohort of people” including the likes of Fuentes, former US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Steve Bannon, who formerly advised US President Donald Trump, in pursuing a “political project” to reshape the American political right.
Uncategorized
Madrid Museum Launches Investigation After Jewish Women Harassed, Kicked Out
Illustrative: Anti-Israel activists held a rally ahead of the game between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Real Madrid for the Turkish Airlines Euroleague, in front of the Palacio de los Deportes (Movistar Arena) in Madrid, Jan. 8, 2026. Photo: David Canales / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
A national art museum in Madrid has launched an investigation after three elderly Jewish women — including a Holocaust survivor — who were verbally harassed over their openly displayed Jewish symbols were subsequently forced to leave, fueling criticism that the institution sided with the perpetrators rather than protecting the victims.
On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Museum Reina Sofía told multiple news outlets that the institution would “immediately launch an independent and transparent internal investigation to clarify what happened,” formally confirming the opening of a probe as scrutiny over the incident intensified.
“The museum wishes to unequivocally express its commitment to equality, religious freedom, and zero tolerance for any type of violence or discrimination related to antisemitism,” the statement read. “The museum’s staff is highly qualified in fundamental rights, conflict management, and the prevention of any type of discrimination.”
“Once again, we would like to highlight the importance that Jewish artists, patrons, and benefactors have had for the institution and its collection, especially in the avant-garde, without whose selfless collaboration the museum as we know it today would be inconceivable,” it continued. “For all these reasons, we will not rest until the unfortunate events that have taken place are clarified.”
Footage of the incident was circulated on social media.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition in 2026, but watch Spain’s shame, as three elderly tourists, including a Holocaust survivor, are harassed & kicked out of Madrid’s state run Reina Sofia museum over Jewish symbols. Staff said visitors were ‘disturbed’ by their presence and… pic.twitter.com/XdAlSlfKzd
— Saul Sadka (@Saul_Sadka) February 16, 2026
First reported by the Spanish news outlet Okdiario, the three women were visiting the museum in central Madrid last Saturday when other visitors spotted them wearing a Star of David necklace and carrying a small Israeli flag.
At that point, a group of people started attacking them verbally, shouting antisemitic insults, and calling them “crazy child killers.”
Rather than intervening against the instigators, museum officials expelled the Israeli women, telling them to leave because “some visitors were disturbed that they are Jewish.”
A security guard also told the group to hide their Jewish symbols, insisting they could not be displayed inside the museum.
Even though one of them pointed out that Spanish law allows people to wear religious symbols and carry national flags in public institutions, they were still forcibly removed from the building despite not breaking any rules.
The Action and Communication on the Middle East (ACOM) group, a leading pro-Israel organization in Spain, announced Monday it will pursue legal action against the Museum Reina Sofía “for discrimination and possible promotion of hatred from a public institution.”
“The legal action will be directed both at the institution and its top official, the museum director, Manuel Segade,” ACOM wrote in a post on X, adding that the museum’s actions reflect “a persistent pattern of using political agendas, engaging in discrimination, and promoting narratives of hate against the State of Israel and the Jewish-Israeli community from a publicly funded institution.”
“A public institution should never be used as a platform for sectarian activism,” the statement continued.
As a state-affiliated cultural institution under Spain’s Culture Ministry, the Reina Sofía is internationally recognized as one of the country’s leading contemporary art museums.
In the past, the museum has also faced criticism for hosting anti-Israel demonstrations and presenting an exhibition titled “From the River to the Sea,” a popular slogan among pro-Palestinian activists that has been widely interpreted as a genocidal call for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, Spain has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Still, Spain stands out as one of the most extreme cases, with experts warning that antisemitic violence and anti-Zionist rhetoric have moved beyond a social phenomenon to, in many instances, being state-promoted and legitimized as a political tool.
In particular, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and several members of his left-wing party have come under mounting criticism from some of the country’s political and Jewish leaders, who accuse them of fueling antisemitic hostility.