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
JD Vance Argues Against the Pope’s Calls for Peace As Iran’s LEGO AI Videos Stoke America’s Religious Divisions
An Iranian propaganda video attacks President Donald Trump in response to social media postings critical of the Pope and regarded as insensitive to Christians. Photo: Screenshot.
Vice President JD Vance, who converted to Catholicism in August 2019 at age 35 criticzed Pope Leo’s call for peace between the United States and Iran, another example of growing religious disagreements among Christians which Iranian propagandists have sought to exacerbate in new propaganda videos.
On Thursday at an event organized in Georgia by conservative activist group Turning Point USA, Vance said when asked about the head of his church disagreeing with President Donald Trump’s policies, “I do think we have to remember that each of us has our own role. I’m the Vice President of the United States. The fundamental way I understand my role is I’m trying to take the lessons, the moral truths that are rooted in Christianity and I’m trying to apply to a whole host of complicated real world scenarios.” Tepid applause broke out in response with Vance then thanking the crowd.
The Vice President’s comments came in the days following social media postings from Trump which included a broadside against Pope Leo and an AI-generated image depicting the Commander-in-Chief wearing white and red flowing robes as he placed one of his glowing hands on the head of a sick man. Trump later removed the image following the criticism of longtime Christian members of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.
Iran took advantage of the social media kerfuffle, on Wednesday the Iranian embassy in Tajikistan posted an AI animation which took the original image and modified it to mock Trump.
Another propaganda video released by a pro-Iran group this week also responded to Trump’s social media postings about the Pope and the Jesus image, again deploying the AI-generated animation style depicting the president and other American officials as LEGO characters while a soundtrack delivers rhyming insults.
The Occupy Democrats Facebook group which has 11 million followers celebrated another pro-Iran propaganda video that has started circulating online.
While the president’s opponents on the progressive left may enjoy Iran’s jabs at Trump, the video’s themes casting him as an enemy of Christianity seek to exacerbate pre-existing intra-theological conflicts among the MAGA base.
This year, other recent Catholic converts — notably far-right podcaster Candace Owens and her supporter Carrie Prejean Boller, the former beauty queen contestant ejected from a White House Religious Liberty Panel on antisemitism following her questioning about Christian Zionism — have also advanced positions counter to Catholic teachings.
Prejean Boller claims that Zionism and Catholicism are incompatible, writing on X after her dismissal from the panel that “I will continue to stand against Zionist supremacy in America. I’m a proud Catholic. I, in no way will be forced to embrace Zionism as a fulfillment of biblical prophesy [sic]. I am a free American. Not a slave to a foreign nation.”
In response to her actions, the group Catholics for Catholics awarded Prejean Boller a “Catholic Champion” award at its gala, an event also featuring Owens and Joe Kent, the recently-resigned director of the National Counterterrorism Center who has suggested that Israel controls America’s foreign policy and may have have had a hand in the Sept. 10, 2025 assassination of Turning Point USA chief Charlie Kirk.
Uncategorized
Antisemitic Beliefs More Common Among Young Social Media Users, Yale Poll Reveals
Uncategorized
Columbia Graduate Students Amend Complaint Against Union Dominated by Anti-Zionist Bosses
Protesters gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall, in New York City, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
Students at Columbia University are escalating their fight against a graduate workers union dominated by anti-Israel advocates, having recently updated a federal complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last year to include new troubling accusations.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the students allege that the bosses who run Student Workers of Columbia (SWC), an affiliate of United Auto Workers (UAW), devote more energy and resources to pursuing “radical policy proposals” than improving occupational conditions. In collective bargaining negotiations, it allegedly pressures the university to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and to enact other measures, such as ending its partnership with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and closing a dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response, the students formed the Graduate Researchers Against Discrimination and Suppression (Columbia GRADS) organization and petitioned the NLRB to rein the SWC in.
The National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), which represents the petitioning students has told The Algemeiner that the SWC subjects students to abuses which magnify problems inherent in compulsory union membership.
The amended complaint enumerates a slew of new examples, including that the SWC, under the threat of a strike, has demanded that the university dismantle CCTV security cameras, proclaim the campus a “sanctuary space” for illegal immigrants, and revoke the authority of public safety officers to detain and arrest students who pose a danger to themselves and others.
“The charges point out that many of these demands are so radical that even the SWC’s parent union, the UAW, has directed the SWC union to retract them,” the group said. “The UAW has also demanded, to no avail, that the SWC union drop its strike threats over these topics, as striking over such extraneous demands is a violation of federal labor law.”
It added, “The charges declare that these actions discriminate against Columbia GRADS and constitute bad-faith bargaining, all of which is prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act.”
“Under the National Labor Relations Act, the only bargaining that is required for a good faith sit down is over mandatory subjects of bargaining such as wages, hours, benefits, and the like,” NRTW staff attorney Glenn Taubman, told The Algemeiner during an interview on Wednesday.” Everything else is either a permissive subject, meaning the parties can choose to bargain or not…what is going on here is the union is trying to force Columbia to bargain over things that are permissive at best, and the items in dispute don’t really benefit the employees that they purport to represent. Instead the union is using bargaining to push an ideological agenda against Israel.”
He added, “All of this adds up to a union that is out of control, and I note that they don’t have an agenda against the Mullahs in Iran, against the dictator who runs Turkey, against the Chinese Communists who oppress their citizens or the North Koreans. But they have an agenda against Israel, the one democracy in the Middle East.”
The SWC is not the only higher education union sidelining important objectives to pursue politics and anti-Zionist policies which cross the line into antisemitism. In a letter sent to Congress in August, NRTW said the problem is also present in unions affiliated with United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE).
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
