Uncategorized
A Jewish diplomat tells his story in PBS documentary about the Iran hostage crisis
(New York Jewish Week) — After a “traditional, religious” Jewish childhood in Brooklyn where he attended yeshiva, Barry Rosen fell in love with Iran.
Rosen was 22 when he joined the Peace Corps and set out on a two-year stint in Iran in 1967. There, Rosen felt deeply connected to the people and culture of the country — he loved the food, the clothing, the language, and the sights, sounds and smells.
“I was told by members of the Peace Corps that Jewish kids did very well in Iran,” Rosen says at the beginning of “Taken Hostage: The Making of an American Enemy,” a new two-part documentary on PBS that explores America’s role in the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. “I felt to a certain degree that there was a warmth there that I could see in my own family. There was a sense of kinship that I felt for Iranians.”
Twelve years after first arriving in Iran, however, Rosen, would become one of the 52 hostages attached to the American embassy in Tehran who were held by Iranian college students for 14 terrifying, pivotal months. When he returned as a press attaché for the US Embassy in 1979, the country he loved was on its way to becoming the oppressive religious republic it is today.
That year, its citizens staged a revolution and overthrew the corrupt, American-backed shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, to make way for Ayatollah Khomeini, the Muslim cleric and “supreme leader.”
In November, 1979, students took control of the American embassy and demanded the shah return from exile to be tried for his crimes. Pahlavi, who had always maintained strong relations with the United States, was in New York for cancer treatment.
Barry and Barbara Rosen have spent the last four decades reliving the trauma of their experience while also advocating for hostages worldwide. (Frankie Alduino)
“It’s a story of perseverance,” Rosen told the New York Jewish Week in a Zoom interview from his apartment in Morningside Heights. “You look back and you say, ‘oh my God was that me? Was that us?’ It was so long ago but also the pain of it is very self-evident and it is still near in many ways.”
As a hostage in Iran, Rosen faced mock executions, days in complete darkness — what he calls “modern state-sponsored terrorism.”
Meanwhile, in Brooklyn, his wife Barbara Rosen found herself at the center of media attention as she advocated for her husband’s release. She and their two young children, Alexander and Ariana, woke up every morning to an onslaught of press ready to exploit her every move, though she had no information about Barry or the situation in Iran.
“It is part of my DNA. I feel personally responsible [to tell my story],” Barry said, sitting beside Barbara. “I was the first member of this honorary group of hostages taken by Iran and I feel that we owe every hostage something so that they can escape that horror.”
“Taken Hostage” tracks America’s connection with the politically volatile Iran, beginning with a 1953 coup d’etat to depose Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, organized in part by the CIA. The shah consolidated power, modernized the country and maintained strong relationships with the West, especially the administration of President Jimmy Carter, but maintained a fearsome and dictatorial reputation among the citizens of Iran.
The documentary traces the story of the revolution and the establishment of power by Khomeini, who undid the Westernization of the previous decades and declared the country the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Along with Rosen, the documentary features Gary Sick, who was a member of the National Security Council at the time and discusses what it was like to navigate the hostage crisis from inside the White House. Foreign correspondents Hilary Brown and Carole Jerome describe risking their lives to report on the crisis from Tehran.
Rosen was one of three Jewish hostages, and though Barbara did not publicize his Judaism out of fear for his safety, American synagogues and Jewish organizations managed to send him mail.
After a year in captivity, Rosen appeared to the public via broadcast and wished his family a Happy Hanukkah. “I really wanted to make sure the American Jewish community knew that I was safe,” he said.
The hostages were released on the day of President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration on Jan, 20, 1981. The settlement unfroze nearly $8 billion of Iranian assets, terminated lawsuits Iran faced in America, and forced a pledge by the United States that the country would never again intervene in Iran’s internal affairs.
Barbara and Barry Rosen at a welcome parade in New York City. (Courtesy Barry Rosen)
Returning stateside was complicated for Rosen, who suffered from PTSD and had to separate his love for Iran from the experience of what had happened to him.
What was waiting for Rosen was “a huge outpouring of love and support from everyday people in the United States,” he said. “I think that was the most joyful part of it. There’s no doubt about it that everybody in the United States thought they knew me. At least in New York, it seemed as if American New Yorkers looked at me as a New Yorker who went through the pain. So I think that was a tremendously helpful and healing thing.”
Both Rosens were disappointed with the behavior of the United States. “It was an embarrassment of the foreign policy establishment. They wanted to wipe it out immediately,” Barry recalled. “They never held Iran accountable for what it did.”
“There was so much that each of the people needed to do to heal, and then after a year, there was never any follow up on any kind of medical or psychological investigation,” Barbara said. “We were both very disappointed in our own government and the way we were treated.”
Barry went on to a career in research and education — he conducted a fellowship at Columbia University doing research on Iranian novelists, served as the assistant to the president of Brooklyn College, and eventually was named the executive director of external affairs at Teachers College at Columbia.
The Rosens, who now have four grandchildren, wrote a book about that period in their lives.
“Personally, I don’t like going back and thinking about it or reflecting on this. It wasn’t a very happy time. It was a difficult time in my life,” Barbara told the New York Jewish Week.
But the documentary, the Rosens said, manages to tell the story of the crisis while reminding viewers how deeply personal it was for those involved. It’s a lesson the Rosens have taken with them as they watched and experienced similar crises over the last few decades, from the war in Ukraine to unrest in Iran over the death in September of a woman who was detained for breaking the hijab law.
“All history is a personal event. Each thing that happens is happening to people,” Barbara said. “It was a story of people being plucked out of their normal jobs, their diplomatic life, the security of just feeling that you’re safe. All of a sudden, you’ve lost all of that. You’re tied up in a chair for a month and not allowed to speak to somebody. Families here had no idea what’s happening to their loved ones in Iran.”
“It’s easier for human beings to think about the abstract issue rather than the personal issue. Get into personal issues, people start to walk away, they feel uncomfortable,” Barry added.
Despite everything, Barry still feels an attachment to the culture and people of Iran that he experienced in his early twenties, calling himself a “child of divorce” between the United States and its former ally, a relationship that he said he doesn’t see improving in his lifetime.
He also continues to tell his story because of his lifelong work with hostage victims around the world. Currently, there are three American hostages and more than a dozen international hostages in Iran. Barry works with Amnesty International, Hostage USA and Hostage Aid Worldwide to advocate for their release.
“I want to make certain that the American government and the American people stand by all those who were taken by Iran and all governments that take hostages, whether it’s China, Russia, Venezuela — but for me, especially Iran,” he said. “I say this because I really feel the need to make this an important issue. The American public needs to understand this very well. People’s lives are being taken away.”
“Taken Hostage,” an “American Experience” documentary, will air on PBS in two parts on Nov. 14 and 15. The film is also available to stream on pbs.org.
—
The post A Jewish diplomat tells his story in PBS documentary about the Iran hostage crisis appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Two deaths in Manchester synagogue attack last year will be probed through public inquiry, Britain says
(JTA) — The deaths of two Jewish men in an attack on a synagogue in Manchester last year will be examined through a public inquiry, the British home secretary announced on Monday, a necessary step to include sensitive information in the investigation.
Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby were killed during the attack on Yom Kippur on Oct. 2, 2025, when Jihad Al-Shamie rammed a car into a group of worshippers outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester and stabbed two people. Cravitz died from stab wounds and another man, Andrew Franks, was seriously injured but survived. Daulby was shot by police while blocking the synagogue doors to stop Al-Shamie from entering. Two other people were seriously injured.
Al-Shamie, a Syrian-born British citizen, said he was acting for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, before police shot him dead.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced the public inquiry in a statement about national security at the House of Commons, saying that “what happened that day must be fully understood.”
“This will ensure that all evidence can be heard, including any sensitive national security material that could not otherwise be fully heard in the coroner’s court,” said Mahmood.
Judge Alexia Durran, the chief coroner of England and Wales, was overseeing inquests into the deaths of Cravitz and Daulby. Durran last month recommended that Mahmood convert the inquests into a public inquiry, following statements from Home Office lawyers that some information from MI5 would be withheld from open court due to national security concerns. A full investigation that involves hearing sensitive material in private requires a public inquiry.
Earlier this year, Greater Manchester Police’s chief constable Stephen Watson said he was “deeply sorry” for a “missed opportunity” to uncover the plot against the Heaton Park synagogue. Watson made the apology after prosecutors revealed that Al-Shamie had two prior arrests for allegedly breaching a non-molestation order and alleged rape, and his mobile devices were not examined until after the synagogue attack.
Mahmood listed “a series of attacks on our Jewish community” in the year since the synagogue attack, including the stabbing of two Jewish men in the London neighborhood of Golders Green, a spate of arson attacks and a “foiled but potentially lethal plot” against Jews in Manchester on the eve of Yom Kippur last month. In the last case, two Iranian men have been charged with terrorism offenses.
“Faced with the threat posed to our Jewish community, we have increased funding to the police by an additional £250 million to boost police presence in key Jewish areas and to tackle antisemitism on our streets,” said Mahmood.
She added, “I know we cannot simply build higher walls around our Jewish community and expect them to live in fear. So we must root out the evil of antisemitism wherever it lurks in society, and this government is committed to that effort.”
Mahmood’s announcement comes days after the Home Office released data showing that hate crimes against Jewish people in England and Wales rose 10% in the year ending in March.
Mahmood said the United Kingdom was aware that “the Iranian state is targeting our Jewish community,” adding that the threat posed to Jews demonstrated “how the lines are increasingly blurring between extremism and state threats.”
The post Two deaths in Manchester synagogue attack last year will be probed through public inquiry, Britain says appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Checkmate? Netanyahu faces a daunting playing field ahead of Oct. 27
(JTA) —
With just two weeks to go before Israel’s election, the political chessboard is set — and there is little indication that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has found a winning move.
Israel’s prime minister is not elected directly by voters but must assemble a coalition commanding a majority of the Knesset’s 120 seats. That means Benjamin Netanyahu’s chances of retaining power depend in part on how well his smaller political allies perform at the polls.
There are 38 parties running in these elections, although no more than 15 will meet the 3.25% vote threshold – the percentage of the total vote that a party needs to clear to gain any seats in the Knesset. The parties that will be left standing after the Oct. 27 vote will likely include three or four on the right, led by Netanyahu’s Likud list; four or five on the center-left, with polling showing the new Yashar party led by Gadi Eizenkot, a former military chief of staff, leading them; two Haredi Orthodox parties; and two predominantly Arab parties.
Unfortunately for Netanyahu, several right-wing parties didn’t merge as he had hoped. Religious Zionism, the ultra-nationalist party led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, did not join forces with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit or Amcha Yisrael, led by retired Brig. Gen. Ofer Winter.
As a result, both Smotrich’s party and Winter’s party remain close to Israel’s electoral threshold, raising the possibility that one or both could fail to win enough votes to enter the Knesset — which means their votes, which could have strengthened Netanyahu’s bloc, will be wasted. With the 3.25% threshold the equivalent of four Knesset seats, the wasted vote could be substantial.
“Netanyahu has been considered Israel’s political magician for many years — the man who managed in 2022 to bring Ben-Gvir and Smotrich together on a joint list,” said Dr. Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Ahead of that election, Netanyahu publicly urged the two parties to merge, warning that the right-wing bloc “can’t take the risk” of either party falling below the electoral threshold. Days later, the two leaders reached a deal following a meeting with Netanyahu, who had pressed for the merger.
“We haven’t seen that happen in this election,” Talshir continued. “Netanyahu is entering this election in the weakest position we have seen him in over the past decade in terms of the parties running.”
The right-wing parties’ decisions to run separately reflected a combination of personal animosity and ideological differences. Winter emphasized the need to bring new faces into politics, arguing that those tainted by the failures behind Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, should make way for new leadership. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, remained divided by personal tensions and the belief that each appeals to a somewhat different segment of Israel’s ultranationalist right.
Veteran pollster Shmuel Rosner believes Winter’s new party risks falling below the threshold. It is currently polling at around four to five seats, but support for new parties has traditionally declined as the initial excitement surrounding their launch fades. Smotrich’s Religious Zionism, which is polling at roughly five to six seats, is also vulnerable. The party has spent a significant amount of time below the threshold in polling in recent months.
“The party lineup is more challenging for Netanyahu than for his opponents,” Rosner said. “In the anti-Netanyahu camp, there is currently no party that is at risk of falling below the electoral threshold, while in the bloc that leans toward Netanyahu, there is at least one — and potentially another — party in that position.”Even if both parties clear the threshold, however, current polling suggests that Netanyahu remains well short of the 61 seats needed to form a governing coalition. Most polls put his bloc at around 52 to 53 seats.
But the picture is not entirely bleak for Netanyahu. The opposition-aligned bloc, currently led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, is also not projected to reach 61 seats. In recent weeks, its numbers have fallen sharply, from roughly 58-59 seats to around 52-53. The balance of the seats go to Arab-led parties.
Yashar party chairman Gadi Eisenkot speaks during the “Game-Changing Generation” National Youth Conference at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem, October 11, 2026. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Talshir attributes that decline not necessarily to a loss of support for the bloc itself, but to changes elsewhere in the electoral map. Three Arab parties have joined forces to make up a unified Joint List party, strengthening the Arab political bloc and helping one of the parties avoid falling below the electoral threshold. The merger could also increase turnout among Arab voters.
Both major political camps have pledged not to include the Arab parties in a governing coalition. However, here too, the anti-Netanyahu bloc is in a better position.
Joint List and Ra’am are projected to win roughly 14 seats. And the leader of Balad, one of the parties making up the Joint List, withdrew from the race late last month after the Supreme Court signaled that his candidacy would be disqualified. The impact of his forced withdrawal remains unclear, but some analysts suggest it could further boost turnout among Arab voters, who may cast protest votes against those who prevented him from running.
Netanyahu’s potential coalition members are adamantly opposed to including any Arab parties in their coalition, and have made the possibility of a coalition that includes an Arab party a line of attack against the opposition bloc. The previous government, formed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid in 2021, brought Ra’am into its coalition to secure a parliamentary majority – a history-making first.
But key figures in the current opposition camp have pledged not to repeat that arrangement this time, saying that emotions remain too raw in the Jewish public three years after the Oct. 7, 2023 deadly Hamas raids inside Israel. Those ruling out another partnership with Arab parties include Gadi Eisenkot, the current leader of the opposition camp in the polls; Lapid, who helped engineer the previous coalition; and Avigdor Lieberman, the hawkish former finance minister.
Talshir nevertheless believes that those commitments could ultimately be tested if the election produces another deadlock. She points to a possible scenario in which Eisenkot and Ra’am could cooperate to establish a minority government, with Ra’am voting to install an Eisenkot-led list while remaining outside the coalition in order to prevent Netanyahu from remaining prime minister.
Abbas told Channel 12 in an interview in August that his top priority was replacing Netanyahu’s current government. And on Saturday, Joint List chairman Youssef Jabareen said his party would be willing to support any government that ends Netanyahu’s rule, subject to conditions he did not specify.
Leader of the Arab Israeli party Ra’am (United Arab List), Mansour Abbas speaks during an election campaign event, ahead of Israel’s legislative elections, in the Arab town of Ka’abiyye-Tabbash-Hajajre in Israel’s Northern District on September 26, 2026. I(Jalaa MAREY / AFP via Getty Images)
If neither bloc can assemble a coalition, Israel could once again find itself heading toward another election — as happened during the two-year political crisis that began in 2019 and led to five subsequent elections — while Netanyahu would remain in office as caretaker prime minister.
“Looking at the scenarios and the polls we are seeing right now, we see a very small chance that either bloc will be able to reach 61 seats,” Rosner said.
One of the biggest wild cards is the handful of parties currently polling below the electoral threshold that have nevertheless decided to remain in the race.Rosner points to three notable parties in that position: The Reservists-Economic Party led by Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha; the Haredi-oriented party led by Moti Leitner; and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White.
The most significant of the three, Rosner said, is the Hendel-Zelekha party, which is hovering around the electoral threshold and could either cross it or fall short. “It is on the edge of the threshold,” Rosner said. “It could pass or fall with four seats.”
The party, he added, is difficult to place politically. “It doesn’t really say what it will do, and it is made up of people who have different interests and different desires,” Rosner said. Still, he estimates that it would be easier for the party to join the opposition-aligned bloc than Netanyahu’s coalition, in part because of the coalition’s partnership with the Haredi parties. Military reservists deeply resent Haredi men who avoid serving in the military and want the next government to end the practice.
Gantz’s Blue and White, which once led the opposition camp but lost much of its popularity after Gantz joined Netanyahu’s government, is still running despite remaining well below the threshold. It is currently polling at around 1%.Gantz has made clear that if his party clears the electoral threshold, he would seek to form a unity government that includes both Netanyahu and parties from the opposition’s change bloc.
The new Haredi party, HaTzibbur HaHaredi, is polling at a similar level. It could draw one or two seats away from the established ultra-Orthodox parties, potentially weakening Netanyahu’s bloc. The party has said it would support a “broad national government,” without specifying which political camp it would join.For now, the key question is not so much whether voters will switch sides, but whether each bloc can mobilize its existing supporters to turn out on election day.
“The struggle right now is much less about moving voters from one side to the other and much more about making sure voters leave their homes and vote,” Rosner said. “And I estimate that the more difficult test will be for the right-wing bloc.”
The post Checkmate? Netanyahu faces a daunting playing field ahead of Oct. 27 appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Poll: Most New York City Jewish voters say criticism of Israel is often a cover for antisemitism
A majority of Jewish voters in New York City believe criticism of the Israeli government is often used as a cover for antisemitism, and more are concerned about antisemitic speech and attitudes than physical hate crimes, according to a new poll examining Jewish views on rising antisemitism and the city’s political climate. The survey also found that Jewish voters were more likely to blame the political left than the right for scapegoating Jews.
The Honan Strategy Group survey of 503 Jewish voters across the five boroughs, shared exclusively with the Forward, was conducted Oct. 2 through Oct. 6 via text-to-web before Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s controversial Oct. 7 statement and before his supporters turned on him during a peace vigil last Wednesday.
The survey found that while 85% do not consider criticism of the Israeli government or its leaders inherently antisemitic, 56% believe such criticism is often used as a cover for antisemitism. Meanwhile, seven in 10 Jewish voters believe they are being blamed for society’s problems, and more hold the political left responsible than the right.
The poll has a reported margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
The findings highlight the ongoing tensions between Mamdani and parts of the Jewish community over his harsh criticism of Israel, his defense of pro-Palestinian protesters’ rights and his ties to the Democratic Socialists of America and other left-wing groups.
Throughout his mayoral campaign and since taking office, Mamdani has sought to draw a line between his opposition to Israel and Zionism and his commitment to protecting Jewish New Yorkers. Last month, he rolled out a new municipal strategy to combat antisemitism, but the plan did not adopt a definition of the term.
Last Wednesday, on the third anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Mamdani issued a statement condemning Israel’s war in Gaza as a “genocide” and accusing the U.S. government of complicity in Israeli war crimes, irking Jewish leaders, including some allies.
The poll also found Jewish voters divided over whether some positions Mamdani has taken toward Israel are antisemitic. By 48% to 42%, respondents said describing Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide is not antisemitic. Similarly, 49% said boycotting Israeli products and companies is not antisemitic, compared with 43% who said it is. But a majority — 52% — said denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic. Almost two-thirds consider protesting outside synagogues an act of antisemitism.
Mamdani, who rose to power aligned with pro-Palestinian activism and is the city’s first Muslim mayor, has repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, has refused to recognize Israel specifically as a Jewish state and has called for a permanent end to city investments in Israel Bonds.
Mamdani has also defended the rights of anti-Israel protesters, including outside synagogues hosting events promoting real estate in Israel and the West Bank. Some demonstrations have included chants calling for an “intifada” and other rhetoric Jewish leaders described as antisemitic and intimidating, slogans Mamdani has either condemned or encouraged people not to use.
“The data shows broad consensus that criticism of Israel’s government is not antisemitic on its own,” pollster Bradley Honan told the Forward. “But it also shows that most Jewish voters have watched that criticism turn into something more troubling, and they want that line taken seriously.”
Earlier this year, the city’s top Jewish officials urged Mamdani to recognize Israel’s centrality to Jewish identity, and a group of liberal rabbis who met with the mayor warned Mamdani that his rhetoric on Israel is “causing harm.”
The same survey found widespread disapproval among Jewish voters of Mamdani’s handling of antisemitism.
Respondents also appeared to disagree with Mamdani’s approach to combating antisemitism. His plan includes millions of dollars for security, hate-crime prevention and Jewish education. It does not adopt a formal definition of antisemitism and offers little clarity on how the administration views anti-Zionism.
In the poll, 34% said antisemitic speech and attitudes were a bigger problem than physical hate crimes, such as assaults and vandalism. Just 8% said hate crimes were the bigger concern, while 46% considered both equally serious.
The post Poll: Most New York City Jewish voters say criticism of Israel is often a cover for antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.
