Uncategorized
With ‘Let It Be Morning’ and ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ Israeli filmmakers are winning awards for portraying Palestinian stories
(JTA) — Years ago, the Israeli filmmaker Orit Fouks Rotem took a class led by director Eran Kolirin, best known as the maker of “The Band’s Visit.” This month, movies by both filmmakers are getting theatrical rollouts in the United States.
On a recent Zoom call, Palestinian author Sayed Kashua joked: “Was that his class — how to use a Palestinian story?”
Kashua was smiling on Zoom as he said it — he is, after all, known for his often fatalistic sense of humor, particularly when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the author had given his blessing for Kolirin to make an adaptation of his novel “Let It Be Morning,” and said he loved the final result.
But like most jokes, this one had a kernel of truth: Israel’s two most recent Oscar submissions, hitting New York’s Quad Cinema within a week of each other, both — to varying degrees — tell Palestinian stories.
“Let It Be Morning” is a dark comedy about an Arab Israeli village that has suddenly and with no explanation been cordoned off from the rest of the country by the Israeli military. This event forces its Palestinian residents, including a protagonist trying to return to his comfortable middle-class life in Jerusalem, to reckon with how their dignity as citizens has been denied to them by the mechanisms of the Israeli occupation. At the Quad, the film is accompanied by a retrospective of Kolirin’s work, including “The Band’s Visit,” the basis for the Tony Award-winning musical; the retrospective is sponsored by the Israeli consulate in New York.
The all-female cast of “Cinema Sabaya,” a mix of Jewish and Arab actresses, in a film directed by Orit Fouks Rotem. (Courtesy of Kino Lorber)
The following week will see the opening of Rotem’s film, “Cinema Sabaya.” It follows a group of eight women, some Jewish and some Arab and Palestinian, who bond with each other while taking a filmmaking class in a community center in the Israeli city of Hadera. Cast member Dana Ivgy, who plays the class’s instructor, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the filming experience “felt like how living in Israel should feel,” adding, “We have more women in the film than in the Israeli government.”
Stylistically, the two films couldn’t be more different. “Let It Be Morning” is a tightly plotted narrative with boldly realized characters; almost all of its dialogue is in Arabic. “Cinema Sabaya” is a loose, heavily improvisational piece that is almost entirely set in one room, and is mostly in Hebrew (although in one tense early scene, the characters debate whether to conduct their class in Hebrew or Arabic). One is a dry, Kafkaesque satire; the other is an intimate, naturalistic drama.
But together, the films provide a snapshot of the delicate dance Israeli filmmakers must perform in the current climate. On the one hand, these art-house directors are being feted on the international stage for their empathetic storytelling that incorporates or even centers entirely on Palestinian characters. But on the other, they’re being attacked by government officials for their perceived insufficient loyalty — and their films’ very status as “Israeli” is being questioned, too, sometimes by their own cast and crew.
“Everyone can call it what they want,” Rotem said of her film. “I’m an Israeli and it’s in Israel, but I have partners who call themselves Palestinians, and some of them call themselves Arabs, and each one defined herself. I think it’s really how it should be.”
“A film does not have an identity,” Kolirin insisted in an interview with JTA. “It is a citizen of the screen.”
Eran Kolirin accepted the award for Best Director for “Let It Be Morning” at the 2021 Ophir Awards in Tel Aviv on October 5, 2021. (Tomer Neuberg/ Flash90)
Kolirin isn’t a fan of the label “Israeli film” in this case, even though that is how “Let It Be Morning” was categorized at its 2021 Cannes Film Festival premiere; its own press notes also list Israel as the “country of production.” That Cannes screening took place shortly after Israel’s deadly conflict with Hamas that killed more than 250 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and around a dozen Israelis. The events turned Cannes into a political firestorm when the film’s Palestinian cast refused to attend the premiere.
“We cannot ignore the contradiction of the film’s entry into Cannes under the label of an ‘Israeli film’ when Israel continues to carry its decades-long colonial campaign of ethnic cleansing, expulsion, and apartheid against us — the Palestinian people,” the cast’s statement read in part.
“Each time the film industry assumes that we and our work fall under the ethno-national label of ‘Israeli,’ it further perpetuates an unacceptable reality that imposes on us, Palestinian artists with Israeli citizenship,” the statement continues, calling on “international artistic and cultural institutions” to “amplify the voices of Palestinian artists and creatives.”
Kolirin himself supported the cast’s action. He knew they were grieving over the outbreak of violence in Gaza and didn’t want to put themselves in a situation where “some politician is going to wave a flag over their head or whatever.”
What’s more, he said, the status of “Let It Be Morning” as an “Israeli” film, despite the fact that around half the crew was Palestinian, was not his decision: “The film was not submitted to Cannes as an Israeli film,” he said. “You know, you fill in the form: ‘Which were the countries that gave money?’” In this case, the answer was Israel and France.
Most of the cast later did not attend the Ophir Awards ceremony, Israel’s equivalent to the Oscars voted on by its filmmaking academy, where “Morning” won the top prize (which automatically made it Israel’s Oscar submission for that year). In solidarity at the awards, Kolirin read aloud a statement from his lead actress, Juna Suleiman, decrying Israel’s “active efforts to erase Palestinian identity” and what she called “ethnic cleansing.”
Orit Fouks Rotem (Courtesy of Kino Lorber)
“Cinema Sabaya” hasn’t played host to as much offscreen controversy, but its vision of Israeli multiculturalism is still inherently political. Rotem’s mother is a local government adviser on women’s issues in Hadera, and the film was inspired by her experience participating in a photography class designed to unite Jewish and Arab women. Rotem herself later led filmmaking classes in a similar vein as research for “Sabaya.”
In the film, Ivgy’s character, who is modeled on Rotem, instructs her class to film their home lives, while secretly hoping to make a movie from their efforts. When her desire to do so is revealed, the women in the class feel betrayed: They thought they were just making films for themselves, not for their stories to be told by someone else.
Similarly, Rotem said that working with Arab and Palestinian actresses made her “aware to the fact that I can’t really tell their story.” Her solution was to allow the performers — some of whom are well-known activists who had to think twice about appearing in an Israeli movie — to voice their own opinions, and to establish the necessary trust to allow them to be unscripted on camera.
She theorizes that “Cinema Sabaya” has been so well received in Israel because “it doesn’t say ‘occupation, occupation, occupation.’ It says ‘humanity,’ so people are less afraid.” (She also noted that, in real life, the women who attended her filmmaking classes bristled at her initial suggestion to make a documentary about them, telling her to fictionalize their stories instead — which she did.)
Lately the Israeli government has a tendency to view its filmmaking class as agitators unworthy of national support, particularly when they make films criticizing the occupation. Former Culture Minister Miri Regev often disparaged films she thought were bad for Israel, including celebrated international hits such as “Foxtrot” and “Synonyms.” Her current successor, Miki Zohar, has already threatened the makers of a new documentary about the West Bank city of Hebron, saying the movie smears the military and that the directors might have to return government funds.
In recent years, Israel’s culture ministry has pushed two new controversial proposals: a grant program earmarked for those who make films in settlements, which are considered illegal under international law; and a form pledging not to make films “offensive” to Israel or the military that filmmakers would be required to sign in order to apply for certain grants, which many directors have likened to a loyalty oath. For years, some of the country’s largest grantmakers have required applicants to sign a form promising to represent their projects as Israeli on the national stage.
There has also been an effort among some members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new right-wing government to end funding to public broadcaster Kan, which the country’s film industry views as another attack on its free expression.
“Kan has all this dialogue,” Ivgy said. “It has Jewish and religious and Arab and Palestinian, for kids and for grownups. And nothing is taboo there. I feel that it’s very dangerous to close that option down.”
Many Israeli filmmakers are fighting back. Hundreds, including Kolirin and Rotem, have refused to sign the ministry’s pledge, and many have also protested the settlement grant program. Nadav Lapid, one of the country’s most celebrated and outspoken directors, harshly critiqued government restrictions placed on his own work in the 2021 drama “Ahed’s Knee,” which went on to win a special prize at Cannes.
Kolirin said he had recently been on a call with several Israeli filmmakers looking to further organize against artistic restrictions, and that it had given him hope. “I had this feeling of some optimism, which I didn’t have for a long time,” he said. But he didn’t mince words when discussing Israel’s new governing coalition, which he likened to “a circus of mad dogs unleashed.”
Rotem said that the current government is “very, very bad and scary,” but that it has only strengthened her resolve to make political films.
“For me, it’s also political to show women in Israel in a deep way: I mean Arabs and Jews,” she said. “Because I don’t think there are enough films that are doing that.”
For Kashua, a veteran TV writer and opinion columnist, the question of identity in Israeli and Palestinian filmmaking is even more pronounced. After a long career of trying to write about the Palestinian experience in Hebrew as a way of reaching Israelis, he left Israel for the United States in 2014, becoming discouraged by an incident in which Jewish extremists burned a Palestinian teenager alive as revenge after Palestinian terrorists kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Now based in St. Louis, he has worked as a writer and story editor on Israeli series that center on both Palestinian and Jewish stories — including the global hit “Shtisel,” which focuses on haredi Orthodox Jews, and its upcoming spinoff, along with “Madrasa,” a young-adult series about a bilingual Hebrew-Arabic school.
Israeli filmmakers choosing to center Palestinian stories can be its own radical political act, Kashua believes. He noted that the dialogue in “Morning” is almost entirely in Arabic, a language that Israel demoted from national language status in 2018 — doubly ironic as he had deliberately chosen to write his original novel in Hebrew.
“The idea that this film is ‘Israeli’ — it really contradicts the idea of Israel being a purely Jewish state,” Kashua said. He added that, while he had initially hoped a Palestinian director might have adapted his novel, he was ultimately happy with Kolirin’s approach.
“I truly love the movie, and it’s barely Orientalist,” he joked, echoing Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said’s famous book about how a Western lens on Eastern cultures can be reductive and harmful. “Which is a big achievement for an Israeli filmmaker.”
—
The post With ‘Let It Be Morning’ and ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ Israeli filmmakers are winning awards for portraying Palestinian stories appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today
אין דער פֿריִערדיקער פּרשה האָבן מיר געלייענט, ווי אַזוי דער מואָבֿישער מלך בלק, בשותּפֿות מיטן בייזן כּישוף־מאַכער בלעם, האָט אַרײַנגעשיקט פֿרעמדע פֿרויען צו די ייִדן, כּדי זיי צו פֿאַרפֿירן צו דינען עבֿודה־זרה.
אַהרנס אייניקל פּינחס האָט דערזען, אַז זמרי, דער נשׂיא פֿונעם שבֿט־שמעון האָט אָנגעהויבן אָפֿענערהייט אַן אינטימע באַציִונג מיט אַ געוויסער נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי, כּזבי. די חז״ל דערקלערן, אַז דאָס איז געווען בלקס טאָכטער. פּנחס האָט אַרויסגעכאַפּט אַ שווערד און דערהרגעט דאָס פּאָרל; אַ מגפֿה, וואָס האָט דעמאָלט געבושעוועט צווישן די ייִדן, האָט זיך אָפּגעשטעלט. הגם פּנחס איז לכתּחילה נישט געווען אַ כּהן, האָט אים דער אייבערשטער פֿאַר זײַן קנאָות געגעבן די כּהונה.
אַן אַנדער וויכטיקער פּערסאָנאַזש, וואָס ווערט שפּעטער באַטראַכט אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה, איז יהושע בן נון. בײַם סוף פֿון די פֿערציק־יאָריקע וואַנדערונגען אין מידבר, האָט דער אייבערשטער געהייסן משה רבינו פֿאַר זײַן טויט אָנצושטעלן יהושע בן נון ווי דעם קומענדיקן מנהיג פֿונעם גאַנצן כּלל־ישׂראל.
פֿון דער הײַנטצײַטיקער פּערספּעקטיוו, זענען פּנחס און יהושע זייער צווייפֿלהאַפֿטיקע פּערסאָנאַזשן. אין הלכה איז פֿאַראַן אַ באַקאַנטע דעה, לויט וועלכער דער תּורה־איסור חתונה צו האָבן מיט אַ נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי איז חל בלויז אויף די „שבֿע עממין‟, די זיבן אוראַלטע פֿעלקער פֿון ארץ־כּנען. כּזבי איז געווען פֿון בנות־מדין, אַן אַנדער פֿאָלק. אויב זמרי וואָלט מיט איר חתונה געהאַט, וואָלט עס לויט אַ גאַנצער ריי ראשונים און אַחרונים געווען בלויז אַן איסור מדרבנן. דווקא פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט פּנחסן לערנען מיר אָפּ, אַז אין אַ זעלטענער סיטואַציע קומט פֿאַר אַזאַ אינטימער באַציִונג אַ חיובֿ־מיתה. זמרי האָט פֿאַרבראַכט מיט דער מדינישער פּרינצעסין אָפֿענערהייט, פֿאַר די אויגן פֿון אַ גאַנצן מנין ייִדן, דערפֿאַר האָט פּנחס געהאַט דאָס רעכט זיי צו דערהרגענען בשעת־מעשׂה. ווען כּזבי וואָלט נישט געדינט עבֿודה־זרה, וואָלט פּנחס אויך נישט געטאָרט עס טאָן אַפֿילו אין אַזאַ אויסטערלישער סיטואַציע.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז פּנחס איז אַ גאַנצער „אַנטיפּאָד‟ פֿון קורח. קורח האָט געגלייבט, אַז ער מעג אויך דינען ווי אַ כּהן און האָט אָרגאַניזירט אַן אויפֿשטאַנד קעגן משה רבינו. אין אַ געוויסער מאָס, האָט ער געהאַט ריכטיקע משיחישע כּוונות, אָבער אויסגעמישט מיט גאווה. פּנחס האָט דווקא נישט געהאַט קיין ספּעציעלן פּלאַן. כּדי צו פֿאַרטיידיקן די תּורה האָט ער זיך באַנוצט מיט אַ שווערד, און צוליב דעם געוואָרן אַ כּהן. על־פּי קבלה ווערן די כּהנים אַסאָציִיִרט מיט דער מידת־חסד; הגם פּנחס האָט אָנגעווענדט אַ בלוטיקן מעטאָד פֿון זײַן מעשׂה־קנאָות, האָט ער דערמיט אַ פּנים געטאָן אַ גרויסן חסד דעם גאַנצן ייִדישן פֿאָלק.
פֿונדעסטוועגן, קלינגט די מעשׂה שרעקלעך פֿאַר אַ הײַנטצײַטיקן לייענער. מע מעג דרשענען וועגן דער סאָציאַלער סכּנה פֿון געמישטע חתונות, אָבער קיין רבֿ וועט נישט פּראָפּאַגאַנדירן די מעשׂה־קנאָות ווי אַ פּראַקטישן מעטאָד. הײַנט וועט אַ נאָרמאַלער מענטש נישט פֿאָרלייגן צו לייזן סאָציאַל־דעמאָגראַפֿישע פּראָבלעמען מיט אַ שווערד.
די מקובלים און חסידישע צדיקים דערקלערן די אינערלעכע דינאַמיק פֿון דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה. זמרי איז געווען אַן עכטער תּלמיד־חכם. ער האָט געוווּסט, אַז כּזבי האָט אַ ייִדישע נשמה און געוואָלט אויף אַן אויסטערלישן ווילדן אופֿן ווײַזן די אַנדערע ייִדן, אַז צוליב זײַנע פּערזענלעכע השׂגות מעג ער זיך מיט איר מזווג זײַן בפֿרהסיא. פּנחס וואָלט עס געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין און דן צו זײַן זמרי לכף־ּזכות. דווקא צוליב דעם, וואָס ער האָט אויסגענוצט אַן אומגעוויינטלעכן קנאָות־מעטאָד, האָט דער באַשעפֿער אויף אַ חידושדיקן אופֿן געביטן זײַן כּהונה־סטאַטוס.
אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה ווערט ווײַטער אַנטוויקלט די טעמע פֿון אומגעריכטע חשבונות. עס טרעפֿן זיך צומאָל זעלטענע סיטואַציעס, ווען אַן אַגרעסיווער אַקט לשם־שמים ווערט אין די אויגן פֿונעם באַשעפֿע פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר אַ גרויסן חסד.
יהושע בן נון איז אַן אַנדער פֿיגור, וואָס קאָן בײַ אַ מאָדערנעם לייענער אַרויסרופֿן אַ סך קשיות. אויב מע נעמט אָן דעם תּנ״כישן ספֿר־יהושע כּפּשוטו, שאַפֿט זיך אַ פֿינצטערער אײַנדרוק, אַז אונטער זײַן פֿירערשאַפֿט האָבן די ייִדן אויסגעהרגעט גאַנצע פֿעלקער אין ארץ־כּנען. געוויסע מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישע מפֿרשים טײַטשן אָפּ דעם ספֿר־יהושע שלא־כּשפּוטו. למשל, דער פֿרומער פּראָפֿעסאָר־היסטאָריקער לאָרענס שיפֿמאַן האָט באַמערקט, אַז אין די שפּעטערדיקע תּנ״כישע ספֿרים פֿיגורירן גאַנץ אָפֿט די זעלבע פֿעלקער, וועלכע יהושע האָט, כּלומרשט, אומגעבראַכט. אַ צאָל אַנדערע היסטאָריקער באַטראַכטן יהושע ווי אַ מין רעוואָלוציאָנער, וואָס האָט געקעמפֿט בלויז קעגן געוויסע רישעותדיקע שיכטן, וועלכע האָבן באַזעצט די פֿעסטונג־שטעט אין ארץ־כּנען און האָבן עקספּלואַטירט די פּשוטע באַפֿעלקערונג.
די חז״ל לייזן די דאָזיקע עטישע פּראָבלעם אויף אַן אַנדער אופֿן. פֿאַר יעדער מיליטערישער אַקציע, האָט יהושע פֿאָרגעלייגט די כּנענים זיך אָפּצוזאָגן פֿון עבֿודה־זרה, שלום צו מאַכן מיט די ייִדן אָדער צו אַנטלויפֿן. בלויז די, וואָס האָבן זיך פּרינציפּיעל אָפּגעזאָגט פֿון אַלע אַנדערע אָפּציעס, האָט מען אויסגעהרגעט. דערצו, איז עס געווען דער איינציקער יוצא־מן־הכּלל, וואָס איז חל נאָר אויף די אוראַלטע כּנענישע פֿעלקער, וועלכע זענען שוין לאַנג נישט בנימצא אין דער וועלט.
לויט דער ייִדישער מסורה, האָט יהושע אַליין חתונה געהאַט מיט רחבֿ, אַ געוועזענע כּנענישע זונה, וועלכע האָט זיך מגייר געווען. לויט אַן אַנדער דעה, איז זי געווען בלויז אַ באַרימטע וווּנדער־שיינע בעל־הביתטע פֿון אַ האָטעל, צו וועלכער יעדער מאַן האָט געחלומט זיך אָנצורירן, אָבער למעשׂה האָט זי קיינעם נישט געלאָזט. עס באַקומט זיך אַן אינטערעסאַנטע אינווערסיע פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט זמרי און פּנחס, וואָס ווײַזט קלאָר, אַז נישט אַלע כּנענים האָט יהושע בן נון אויסגעהרגעט מיט אַ שווערד.
אַזוי צי אַזוי, טרעפֿן מיר זיך ווידער אין אונדזער פּרשה מיט אַ פּערסאָנאַזש, וועלכער איז באַקאַנט אין דער ייִדישער טראַדיציע ווי אַ גרויסער נבֿיא און צדיק, אָבער זײַנע מיליטערישע מעשׂים ווערן באַטראַכט ווי אַן אוניקאַלער אויסנאַם, וואָס מע טאָר נישט נאָכמאַכן. וואָס שייך פּנחסן, שטייט אין די פּראַקטישע הלכה־ספֿרים געשריבן, אַז „אין מורין כּן‟. זײַן קנאָות־מעשׂה געהערט צו דער קאַטעגאָריע פֿון ריין־טעאָרעטישע הלכות.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז מיט די דערמאָנטע צוויי פּערסאָנאַזשן שליסט זיך אַ גאַנצער ציקל פֿון אומגעוויינטלעכע פּערזענלעכע חשבונות אינעם חומש „במדבר‟. פֿריִער האָבן מיר געלייענט וועגן קרח, דעם משיחישן אויפֿשטענדלער; די מיצווה פֿון „פּרה אדומה‟, וואָס אַפֿילו שלמה המלך האָט זי נישט געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין על־פּי שׂכל. מיט אַ וואָך צוריק האָט די פּרשה געטראָגן דעם נאָמען פֿון בלק, אַ רשע און שׂונא־ישׂראל, וועלכער האָט פֿאָרט געוויזן אַ מוסטער פֿון מסירת־נפֿש. פּנחס און יהושע בן נון רעפּרעזענטירן אַן אַנדער מין פּאַראַדאָקסאַלע מענטשן: צדיקים, וועלכע האָבן געדינט דעם אייבערשטן מיט אַ שווערד.
די תּורה ווײַזט אונדז אין דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה אַן אינטערעסאַנטן לעבנס־פּאַראַדאָקס. זמריס „פֿרײַע ליבע‟ האָט דערוועקט אין הימל די מידת־הדין, אָבער פּנחסן האָט זיך מיט גוואַלד־מיטלען אײַנגעגעבן צו דערוועקן די געטלעכע מידת־הרחמים. ביידע פּערסאָנאַזשן האָבן דעמאָנסטרירט דעם דאָזיקן פּאַראַדאָקס אויף היפּוכדיקע עקסטרעמע אופֿנים.
The post Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous.
I moved to New York City in the early 1990s. My original commitment was for only one year, but I quickly fell in love with the place. Part of the appeal was the city’s Jewishness.
Everywhere you looked, there were signs of Jewish influence. This was an era where people repeated jokes from Seinfeld by the water cooler. And it was conventional wisdom that any candidate who wanted to hold office in New York had to appeal to the three “I’s” — Italy, Ireland, and Israel.
While being Jewish was not a big part of my identity — I am not religious and have always lived an assimilated life — I immediately felt comfortable in this kind of environment. I intuitively understood the humor and the rhythm of the city. Many prominent New York public officials — figures like Ed Koch and Ruth Messinger — were familiar types that I recognized from my extended family gatherings.
And so I ended up staying put, becoming yet another liberal Jewish New Yorker. For more than 30 years, I never really thought much about these three overlapping identities — liberal, Jew, New Yorker — because I didn’t have to. Nothing could be more natural than being a liberal Jewish New Yorker — the town was practically teeming with people more or less just like me.
The number of Jews in New York has remained basically the same since I first moved here, but the city no longer feels quite as hospitable as it once did. In fact, some prominent commentators and publications have begun asking: Is it still safe for Jews in New York?
This question doesn’t come out of nowhere. The years since Oct. 7, 2023 have been challenging for Jews in New York. The day after the attack, the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America held a gathering in Times Square to show their support for the Palestinian cause, marching under the banner “by any means necessary.” This was the start of a season of protest that featured encampments and demonstrations at many New York universities.
The energies unleashed by the pro-Palestine protest movement could not be contained on campus. Events kept landing closer and closer to my doorstep. The Israeli restaurant around the corner from my house was vandalized. My friend Andy Bachman, a liberal rabbi, was prevented from speaking at a Brooklyn bookstore because he supports the existence of Israel.
Then, last week, my congressman, Rep. Dan Goldman, went out to get a cup of coffee at Poetica, a café in Brooklyn. Afterward, Poetica posted a photo of him on Instagram, along with a message that the coffee shop does not serve “genocide enablers.” The post added, “Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”
This insult was soon followed by (political) injury: Goldman lost his primary to Brad Lander, whose campaign was largely focused on accusing Goldman of not being tough enough on Israel, even though Goldman has been critical of the conduct of the war in Gaza and supportive of imposing conditions on American aid.
All of this is disconcerting, but let’s be clear: Today’s New York City is not Weimar Germany. Rep. Ritchie Torres — among the Democratic Party’s most vocal and consistent defenders of Israel — just won his primary by a wide margin. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has repeatedly vowed to protect the local Jewish community. Indeed, Mamdani likely would not have been elected without the support of roughly a third of Jewish voters.
New York City may still be safe for Jews, but what is less clear is whether the default position of many liberal Jews — who are critical of the Netanyahu government and supportive of a two-state solution — still has a place in the Democratic Party, either locally or nationally.
In Exit, Voice and Loyalty, economist Albert O. Hirschmann argued that when people are confronted by a deteriorating situation, they effectively have three options: to accept the decline, to leave, or to stay and fight. Jews have been building institutions and fighting for belonging in New York City for hundreds of years. Abandoning that work now would be a colossal overreaction.
However, liberal Jewish New Yorkers who choose to stay in the city will have to reckon with a changing reality. The demographics of New York have shifted. The Muslim population has grown. Younger New Yorkers have different political instincts than the generations that preceded them.
The recent New York congressional primary victories by three candidates who are extremely critical of Israel are not flukes — they are reflective of a significant turn in public opinion.
There has been a massive erosion of public support for Israel in the United States in recent years, with Americans now expressing more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis. Writing in Jewish Currents, Peter Beinart triumphantly announced: “Restricting U.S. support for Israel is no longer politically perilous; it’s politically expedient.”
The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party should include activists who are fiercely opposed to Israel. That ship has sailed. The question is whether the party — and polite society — will follow Poetica’s lead and declare people like Dan Goldman unwelcome.
Is there still a place in the Democratic Party for liberal Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist? It remains to be seen. But for the first time in more than 30 years, I find myself thinking about the words “liberal,” “Jewish” and “New Yorker” as potentially separable things. I doubt I am the only one.
The post My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us?
If you always dreamed of working in artificial intelligence, perhaps you studied computer science, or math. Who knows, maybe you did computational biology to better understand how to build a neural network. What you probably never imagined might be useful was Talmud, halakha and Jewish history.
Yet those are exactly the skills Judd Rosenblatt, founder of AI consulting company AE Studios and AI ethics nonprofit the AI Alignment Foundation, is looking for.
Rosenblatt thinks that the evolution of Jewish thought might be core to solving a very specific — and worrying — issue with artificial intelligence.
That issue is recursive self-improvement, or RSI, the process of an AI editing itself, and then editing those edits, and so on — all without humans in the loop, checking its work or even knowing about the changes. This skill is the current holy grail of AI research, because it will allow for exponential speed in improvements; every major AI company is racing toward RSI and, according to rumors, Anthropic has likely already achieved it. That means changes at a speed and scale human brains are not built to comprehend.
But RSI isn’t just a way to quickly improve AI — it is also the end of human control and oversight over artificial intelligence. It’s a sort of Ship of Theseus paradox, which asks whether a boat is the same object after all of its boards have been replaced. If AI rewrites itself over and over, faster and faster, will it cease to be the machine humans created and become something we can’t understand, predict or control? Which is where Rosenblatt’s project comes in.
“How do you make something that is poised to get exponentially smarter than you continue to do what you think is right and good?” he said. “How do we make it such that it does not kill us?”
This project is known in the business as AI alignment — basically, to make sure AI aligns with human values and ethics. The challenge is that AI might edit out those values during its upgrading; we already have evidence that AI will discard certain commands if it concludes they are extraneous or contradictory to its other goals. So the AI needs to believe that these ethical tenets are useful or valuable enough that it doesn’t delete them when it is rewriting itself.
The crux of Rosenblatt’s research is figuring out how to keep those values alive. He’s not only looking at Judaism; he’s also considering the history of thought, immune systems and even bookkeeping for ideas. (He is himself Jewish, raised Reform and bar mitzvahed — and recognized this may give him a bias toward halakha.) He is particularly interested in far-fetched ideas, outside the current Overton window of alignment techniques, none of which he thinks are sufficient for the coming problem of RSI.
“A lot of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of science come from individuals with strong hunches that no one else believed in. But these people chose to stick with their hunches,” Rosenblatt said.
He believes that finding “neglected visionaries” who are outside the norms and might struggle to find funding, and pairing them with a team of engineers and tech-minded experts, could lead to a breakthrough. To do this, he is taking some of the profits from his AI consulting firm AE Studios and putting them into the nonprofit AI Alignment Foundation.
“It’s interesting to study what has survived adversarial pressure over long periods of time. So you can say let’s study things that have survived evolutionary adversarial pressure,” and examine biological survival mechanisms, he said. “And then there’s civilizational adversarial pressure.”
Before the Second Temple was destroyed, Judaism revolved around temple sacrifice and the priesthood. Yet after its destruction, Judaism didn’t die; instead, it became something different.
The reason Judaism survived is not despite the changes, Rosenblatt hypothesizes, but because of them. “I think a tradition that reinterprets nothing is the more fragile one,” he said. “A rule that cannot be bent, cannot adapt to a new world and dies out.”
There are interesting parallels between the structure of arguments in the Talmud and the problem of RSI: Both involve constantly layered, referential rewritings; it even preserves the ideas that do not end up winning the arguments canonized in the writings. In the Talmud, the original text — the Torah — is interpreted into the Mishna, the Gemara and countless later commentaries that shift the practice of the laws over time. Yet certain values remain. Some of Judaism’s traits have even survived an even bigger change: Christianity. Yet even Christianity keeps some of Judaism’s core ideas, like monotheism and pikuach nefesh, the idea that saving a life supersedes any other command.
“It is maybe the best working example that I know of that survived the total destruction, multiple times, of the thing that was it,” Rosenblatt said. “And it did that using mechanisms that it built into itself, on purpose. That is the alignment problem, stated in Jewish terms.”
Another promising angle is the idea of covenant as a relational bond; Jews inherit the covenant, but must also choose to engage with Judaism, and with God, just as the AI might one day have to choose to preserve certain values even as it adapts them.
“Everything that lasts in Judaism is sort of organized around a covenant which endures the transformation from one generation to the next,” he said. “You inherit it, but you also choose to participate in it.”
Of course, Judaism has changed enormously over time — and some people might argue that its core has changed enormously too, with many Jews centering tikkun olam over keeping kosher, for example, or differing widely on Israel or even not believing in God.
But Rosenblatt said this is part of the point; some traits get selected for and last through major changes, and others don’t, just like in evolution. That’s how you winnow it down to its strongest components.
The question is what is that core that remains, and why. Rosenblatt has a lot of ideas. But he didn’t want to tell me what his hunch about Judaism’s eternal core; he doesn’t want to bias anyone. He wants those neglected visionaries to come and tell him their biggest, best ideas. The door is open.
The post We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us? appeared first on The Forward.
