Uncategorized
A Golda Meir biopic starring Helen Mirren avoids politics. It premiered as Israel’s government faces widespread scrutiny.
(JTA) — When a film about a group of Israeli youths who visit former concentration camps in Poland premiered on Sunday at the Berlin Film Festival, its Israeli producer took the microphone after the screening to decry the state of his nation.
“The new far-right government that is in power is pushing fascist and racist laws,” said Yoav Roeh, a producer of “Ha’Mishlahat” (“Delegation”) on stage after the film’s premiere. He was referring to lawmakers in Israel’s government who have long histories of anti-Arab rhetoric and their new proposals to limit the power of the country’s Supreme Court, which critics at home and around the world deem a blow to Israel’s status as a democracy.
“Israel is committing suicide after 75 years of existence,” Roeh added.
The next day brought the premiere of “Golda,” a highly-anticipated Golda Meir biopic starring Oscar winner Helen Mirren about the former Israeli prime minister and her decisions during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Hours earlier, Israel’s government took another step closer to passing its controversial judicial reforms, and when asked about the political situation, Mirren didn’t mince words.
“I think [Meir] would have been utterly horrified,” she told AFP. “It’s the rise of dictatorship and dictatorship was what has always been the enemy of people all over the world and she would recognize it as that.”
That was the heated backdrop for the debut of “Golda,” which will not hit U.S. theaters until August. But an onlooker wouldn’t know that from the film’s own introductory press conference with Mirren, director Guy Nattiv and other stars from the film. The headlines that have emerged from it have been dominated by the film’s place in the “Jewface” debate, about who should play Jewish characters on screen. Mirren is not Israeli or Jewish.
“Let’s say that we’re making a movie about Jesus Christ. Who’s going to play him?” Mirren’s co-star Lior Ashkenazi stepped in to answer in response to a journalist, eliciting laughter from the press corps.
The film is framed by Meir’s testimony to the Agranat Commission, which investigated the lead-up to the war. As the film shows through flashbacks, Meir appears to have not acted quickly enough on Mossad intelligence about a possible attack from Egyptian and Syrian forces. Israeli forces were surprised on the holiday and initially lost ground; both sides lost thousands of troops, and the war is seen as a major trauma in Israeli history — the moment when the state’s conception of its military superiority over its Arab neighbors was shattered. The film is claustrophobic, shot mostly indoors — in bunkers, hospital rooms and government offices — and offers an apt visual encapsulation of the loss the war would bring.
Mirren walks the red carpet at the Berlin Film Festival, Feb. 20, 2023. She spent time on a kibbutz in 1967. (Courtesy of Berlinale)
Though Meir has historically been lionized as a tough female hero in the United States and in Jewish communities around the world (even non-Jewish soldiers in Ukraine took inspiration from her in the early days of the Russian invasion last year), her legacy is more complicated in Israel and the Palestinian territories. In addition to being associated with the trauma of the war for many Jewish Israelis, she is remembered as an inveterate enemy by Palestinians.
In recent years, the representation of Meir has shifted more favorably in Israel, said Meron Medzini, Meir’s former press secretary and one of her biographers. He said that historians have begun to view her favorably in comparison to some of the political leaders who followed her.
“I consider the film [‘Golda’] part of this effort to rehabilitate her name,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “I think she is now gaining her rightful place in the history.”
“Golda” fits into Medzini’s narrative by emphasizing the intractability and pride of her Cabinet ministers as the prime reasons for Israel’s surprise. It affirms Meir’s honor by portraying her as attempting to protect the ministers from criticism — all men — and to promote national unity.
At the press conference, Nattiv gave the briefest of nods to Meir’s complex legacy but like Medzini compared her to Israel’s current slate of leaders, who he reserved brief criticism for.
“Golda is not a super clean character in this movie,” said Nattiv, who is best known for directing “Skin,” a 2018 film about a neo-Nazi. “She had her faults. She made mistakes. And she took responsibility, which leaders are not doing today.”
Meir has long enjoyed a kind of star status in the United States. She was interviewed by Barbra Streisand in 1978, close to the Israeli leader’s death from cancer, for a TV special on Israel’s 30th anniversary.
“She clearly is the great-grandmother of the Jewish people [in the special] and Streisand is very reverential toward her,” Tony Shaw, a history professor at the University of Hertfordshire and the author of “Hollywood and Israel: A History,” said about the Streisand interview. “She just comes across as very humble, slightly out-of-date, out-of-time.”
“Of course, it’s very different from what we now know Golda Meir was really like,” he added, referring to her strong character and political pragmatism, which the film seeks to convey.
Since William Gibson’s critically-panned 1977 play also titled “Golda,” there have been a number of representations of Meir. Most famous among them is Ingrid Bergman’s final performance in “Golda Meir,” a four-hour-long television biopic from 1982. That production “was very much in keeping with Hollywood’s treatment of Israel in that period,” said Shaw, “which was very sympathetic towards Golda Meir, towards Israel and the troubles it was having in the first 30 years of its life.” More recently, Meir appears in Steven Spielberg’s more ambivalent 2005 film “Munich,” in which she helps to recruit the film’s protagonist to track down the figures behind the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks.
Golda Meir meets with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and troops on the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War, Oct. 21, 1973. (Ron Frenkel/GPO/Getty Images)
Nattiv’s work, which has received mixed early reviews, focuses on the war as reflected in Meir’s character, forgoing engagement with broader politics or history.
“My inspiration was ‘Das Boot,’ in the way that she is in the trenches,” said Nattiv, referencing the revered World War II movie from 1981 set in a German U-boat. “She is very alone in the mayhem of war around these men.”
“This is the Vietnam of Israel,” he explained. “It is a very tough and hard look at the war and every soldier that died…Golda takes it to her heart.”
Despite the “Jewface” questioning, Nattiv compared Mirren to an “aunt” figure who, for him, had the “Jewish chops to portray Golda.” Mirren explained to the AFP that she has long felt a connection to Israel and to Meir, especially after a stay on a kibbutz in 1967, not long after the Six-Day War, with a Jewish boyfriend.
“She was at her happiest on the kibbutz actually,” Mirren said. “Their idealism, their dream of the perfect world. And I did experience that which was great.”
Sanders Isaac Bernstein contributed reporting from Berlin.
—
The post A Golda Meir biopic starring Helen Mirren avoids politics. It premiered as Israel’s government faces widespread scrutiny. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The Gospel of Grievance — From Father Coughlin to Tucker Carlson
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
There is a new digital gospel sweeping the American landscape. It preaches grievance, faith, and freedom in equal measures. Its apostles include the likes of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, and a proliferating class of imitators.
Freed from the guardrails of editors and regulators, they feed off of mob fury and algorithmic applause. They use their pulpits to preach of national decay, all while wrapping themselves in the vestments of Christian renewal.
They all claim to be “just asking questions,” but by some perverse irony, the answer is always the same. Behind every corruption, every lost ideal, and every “establishment,” they inevitably will find the familiar silhouette of the Jew.
They have updated the tropes with terms like globalists, neo-cons, and Christian Zionists, but the pogrom-era rhetoric remains familiar. This is not theological antisemitism; this is a 21st-century cultural version, an aesthetic antisemitism of mood, meme, and insinuation. Utilizing borrowed piety, they baptize resentment and harvest rage and indignation.
This is their crusade, and they have corrupted a religious thematic to lend them divine coverage. “The truth shall set you free,” is their battle cry, and “Christ is King” has become their slogan of defiance, not devotion.
As my grandmother was fond of saying, “there is nothing new under the sun.” This is not a new gospel, only a recycled heresy. We have a recent and more successful American epoch to which we can look to for perspective. In fact, Tucker and his minions merely plagiarized the playbook of an American Catholic priest just over a century ago known as Father Coughlin.
Charles Coughlin began in Detroit as a preacher of hope — and ended up as one of the most prolific disseminators of antisemitism in American history. Armed with his frock and a national radio program, Coughlin delivered his own racist brand of Christian virtue that was populism with a halo.
He broadcast his divinely inspired grievances, to an audience estimated at its height of up to 40 million people, or roughly one-third of the American population. His diatribes were consistent in that they all revolved around a theme of Jewish conspiracy.
In his telling, Franklin Roosevelt, the New Deal, Wall Street, unions, the press, were all controlled and manipulated by the Jews.
When he launched his radio show, it was moralistic but not sanctimonious; he was charismatic, warm, and conversational.
Everything changed with the Great Depression — when he transitioned from theological to economic populism, less priest, and more crusader. As his popularity soared, his myopic focus on the Jewish population increased accordingly.
As a man who saw things in cosmic good and evil, God versus corruption, he became a demagogue railing against the banks and the “money changers.”
He was vocally defending Hitler, supporting fascism, and reprinting the “Elders of Zion” and other Nazi propaganda. This activity was accompanied by his incessant attacks on the ubiquitous Jew that he saw in every shadow of every corner.
Rabbi Jonathan Sachs once said, “More than hate destroys the hated, it destroys the hater.” In the case of Father Coughlin, his malady had taken him past the point of no return, and his passion had graduated from engaging to psychosis.
The Vatican decided Coughlin was a liability and pulled the plug by instructing him to cease broadcasting. Roosevelt’s government and the FCC decided that the good father had crossed the Rubicon and had no choice but to take him down. He was unceremoniously deprived of mail and radio privileges.
Father Coughlin went back to quiet pastoring for another few decades, and passed away in ignominy in 1979.
Today’s pretenders to Coughlin’s throne are less talented, but they are equally venomous and divisive. We can no longer rely on the church and government to stymie the efforts of those who wish to divide us.
Anyone with a Wi-Fi connection can mine the depths of human debasement and moral despair. Radio towers are no longer the barrier to entry, all that is required today is a grievance and a trending podcast.
In a way, this makes the likes of Carlson, Owens, and Fuentes more dangerous — because no one will be coming to stop them. It will be solely up to the American people to accept or reject what they are selling.
Coughlin’s America had the courage to silence him, but ours has provided a microphone and an audience. America today rightfully does not believe in guardrails and resists cancel culture, but at the same time it mistakes amplification for truth. Racism thrives when institutions abdicate, when grievances are monetized faster than they can be moderated, and when complexity is traded for conspiracy.
Philip Gross is a business executive and writer based in London. Born in New York, he writes on Jewish history, identity, and public affairs.
Uncategorized
What Would Happen if America Turned Against Israel — and US Jews?
An Israeli flag and an American flag fly at Abu Dhabi International Airport before the arrival of Israeli and US officials, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Aug. 31, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Christoper Pike
The United States is arguably Israel’s greatest friend and ally. But what if it wasn’t anymore? What would American Jews and Israel have to do then?
With the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the next mayor of New York City, which is home to more Jews than anywhere else in the US, the rise to power of anti-Israel politicians is now more apparent than ever. Indeed, as anti-Israel and antisemitic politics in both the Democratic and Republican parties becomes increasingly popular, it may only be a matter of time before enemies of the Jewish State dominate both houses of Congress, and even the US presidency. If that happens, Israel, its supporters, and all Jewish Americans need to be ready.
How would an anti-Israel US behave? Firstly, it would not support Israel in international forums, like the UN Security Council. As a result, Israel would face severe diplomatic isolation, unlike anything it has ever seen — even worse than the isolation Israel faces now. Indeed, Israel could end up becoming a pariah state like North Korea.
If the US ceases to be its ally, Israel would also likely face severe economic consequences. Currently, the US is Israel’s largest trading partner. Trade between the two countries is valued at $35 to $40 billion a year. Imagine if the US severely cut trade ties with Israel or even stopped trading with Israel entirely. The Israeli economy would be in danger.
Things wouldn’t be better for American Jews or other Americans who support Israel either. In fact, the kind of hostility Jews and supporters of Israel face in the US now might pale in comparison to the hostility they would face if the US was no longer a friend of the Jewish State. Eventually, even state-sponsored antisemitism could occur. In fact, many Jews around the world today will tell you they already feel as if it’s the 1930s all over again.
Both Israel and American Jews should immediately begin preparing for such a nightmarish scenario. There’s no time to waste.
For its part, Israel must be ready for a mass influx of immigration from the US. Absorbing immigrants, however, will probably be the least of Israel’s worries if the US is no longer its ally. The bigger problem will be reducing dependence on the US, especially in regards to military equipment and trade.
In Israel’s formative years, few countries were willing to sell arms to the Jewish State, so Israel had to be as self-sufficient as possible, and manufacture much of its own military equipment. Today, Israel has a thriving arms industry, one of the best in the world. Nevertheless, Israel is still too dependent on US military equipment. This has to change. Israel must undertake efforts to ensure that it can manufacture most if not all its own arms. Everything from ammunition to fighter aircraft. Because if the US ceases to be Israel’s ally, it will severely restrict its sale of arms to the Jewish State, if not stop altogether.
Furthermore, Israel must learn to survive without the US as a major trading partner. It must seek new trade partners and consolidate trade with current partners. Israel should do its utmost to ensure that it is as economically self-sufficient as possible in the event that the US decides to impose crippling sanctions or even a full-scale trade embargo.
Meanwhile, American Jews should prepare for the possibility that they might have to immigrate to Israel if being Jewish in the US becomes impossible and even threatens their lives. A good start would be learning Hebrew.
This is obviously a doomsday scenario, which will hopefully never come to pass. Nonetheless, we should all be prepared for the possibility that, in the future, the US may no longer be Israel’s ally — and might become hostile to all its Jewish citizens. Better to be safe than sorry.
Jason Shvili is a freelance writer and commentator on Jewish affairs, Israel, and the Middle East.
Uncategorized
Rabbi Moshe Hauer: In a World of Self-Promotion, He Chose Humility
For four years, my boss and mentor, Rabbi Moshe Hauer, Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union, and I, argued about how much self-promotion is needed for a leader to make a global impact.
As the leader of the Orthodox Union, representing the largest Jewish Orthodox organization in the world, I felt it was imperative that Rabbi Hauer spend more time talking publicly about the work of the organization.
I asked that he allow us to post more pictures of him in high-level meetings on social media, and that as a respected spiritual leader, he give people more access to his inner world in his writings. He fought me on each one.
And now, as we approach his shloshim on November 15, following his passing at age 60 on Shmini Atzeret, he has proven me wrong. Tributes streamed in from all over the world — from Presidents Trump and Biden to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from faith leaders to communal leaders across all Jewish denominations.
I’ve been reminded that the Talmud teaches, “One who runs from honor, honor chases after him.”
Rabbi Hauer’s was not a natural shyness; it was a principled modesty. The book of Micah speaks of “walking modestly with your God.” It was a value that underscored all of Rabbi Hauer’s work.
There were initiatives that, for political reasons, he felt would be more impactful if they were not associated with the Orthodox Union. Without hesitation, he would greenlight the project and instruct those managing it to take no credit. Similarly, one colleague once quipped how a certain Jewish organization “beat the Orthodox Union to it,” by attaining a goal we were also working to achieve. Rabbi Hauer was incredulous: “Beat us?! We are all on the same team!”
Such levels of selflessness and integrity are rare in higher levels of leadership; corner offices are known for their outsized egos. This is perhaps why he made such an impact on the many political and faith leaders he met. Though he was soft-spoken, and though he never shied away from making it known when he disagreed with them, he was respected by all. In the words of Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, “Yes, we disagreed on so many issues but shared a profound respect and love for one another.”
Rabbi Hauer had a rich inner world. Watching him pray or study Torah, you could see the genuine emotions pouring forth. I begged him to write more often about his inner spiritual world, but he was allergic to charismatic faith leadership. As a rabbinic intern in the synagogue he led for 25 years, I saw how hard he worked to create leaders, not followers. Despite him rarely speaking about himself, thousands have described how much they grew from his spiritual teachings and model.
More recently, as his special assistant, I was witness to a unique dynamic between a boss and his employees. He was revered, and some may say feared, in the halls of the Orthodox Union, not because he reprimanded anyone, but because of his very high standards that motivated everyone around him to meet his expectations. Employees were often hesitant to argue with a decision made by Rabbi Hauer, their boss. They would ask me to be the go-between, and I would try to explain to them how wrong they were to avoid speaking with him directly.
Rabbi Hauer welcomed everyone into his office with a big smile. He took advice from anyone regardless of their title. If he was wrong, he would admit it — publicly and often. The Talmud states that God’s greatness is found in his humility. Rabbi Hauer was a Godly man.
I would assist him with his personal communications, which he was always catching up on. His inbox overflowed with messages; from wealthy donors, side by side with those from former congregants, from a world leader who wanted advice on a thorny topic and from a teenager who had a simple question about something he wrote. His schedule was grueling, and I begged him to ignore emails and just send a standard reply — a practice adopted by many people of his stature. He refused. He valued each and every person and wanted to make sure they knew it.
The most difficult part of my job was having to give him feedback. He was my teacher, and I had so much respect for him, making it hard to criticize him in any way. Whenever this happened, he would see me hesitating and begged me to speak my mind. Quite often he would ask me if he was missing something, if he was expecting too much from others or inserting himself too much into a situation. He was not asking from a place of low self-esteem, he was extremely confident. Rather, he recognized that in positions of power, one can too easily be blinded by that power, and so he worked tirelessly to maintain a healthy self-awareness.
Though some leadership books have recently started describing modesty and humility as valuable characteristics, it’s all too rare to see them put into practice.
In a world of social media influencers, and even faith-based social media influencers, self-promotion is seen by many as the only way to make an impact. But the thousands who gathered in Baltimore for Rabbi Hauer’s funeral, the thousands more who gathered in Jerusalem for his burial, the thousands visiting his home daily to pay their respects to the family, the countless tributes from faith leaders and politicians of all persuasions, and more important to Rabbi Hauer, the many simple regular people who felt touched by his greatness, are proof that genuine modesty and humility are exceptionally effective tools in making a real difference.
May his memory be for a blessing.
Rabbi Yisrael Motzen is the rabbi of Ner Tamid and the Special Assistant to the EVP at the Orthodox Union.

