Uncategorized
American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?
(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.
The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.
“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.
“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”
The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.
Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.
“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”
Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)
We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?
Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.
I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.
Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.
What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.
I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?
I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.
If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.
But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.
So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?
First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.
There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.
It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.
One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.
What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?
I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.
It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.
There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?
Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.
But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.
So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.
The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.
There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.
I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?
Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.
I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.
And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.
But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.
And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.
Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.
The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?
Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.
So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.
—
The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Did Israel force Trump into war with Iran? After Marco Rubio suggests so, Israel’s critics erupt.
(JTA) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio inflamed critics of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran on Monday when he suggested that Israel had pulled the United States into the conflict.
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters in Washington, D.C.
After a reporter asked Rubio to clarify whether the United States was forced to strike because of Israel’s plans, the secretary said no.
“This operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage,” Rubio said. He added, “Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.”
The comments were sensitive because allegations that the United States is subservient to Israel have gripped both the far right and far left in recent years.
And despite his clarification, Rubio’s first comment caught on among skeptics of the war from across the ideological spectrum.
“Secretary Rubio says the quiet part out loud: this is an unnecessary war of choice,” tweeted Rep. Sara Jacobs, a Jewish progressive from California. “Israel forced our hand – there was no imminent threat to the United States. And instead of talking Israel out of going to war, President Trump went along with it and put U.S. lives at risk.”
The conservative commentator Matt Walsh, meanwhile, shared a video of Rubio’s initial statement and tweeted, “So he’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said.”
For their part, Trump and Netanyahu both reject the idea that the war serves Israel’s interests primarily or that Netanyahu had lured Trump into war.
“There are people that say, well, the prime minister of Israel dragged Donald Trump into it. And as someone who has been friends with him over 30 years, nobody drags Donald Trump into anything — but I want to get your reaction to that,” the Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Netanyahu on Monday night. He did not name anyone who had offered that criticism.
Netanyahu laughed, dismissing as “ridiculous” the allegation that he was controlling Trump.
“Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world,” he said. “He does what he thinks is right for America. He does also what he thinks is right for future generations. … Iran is committed to your destruction. And whether people understand it or not, the leader has to understand it. Donald Trump understands it. You don’t have to drag him into anything. He does what he thinks is right, and this is right.”
Trump, meanwhile, told the New York Post on Monday that he believed that most Americans support the war, despite polling showing approval at well under 50%. He said he had made the decision to strike only after failed negotiations with the Iranians in Geneva on Thursday after learning that Iran was continuing to seek to produce nuclear weapons at a new site.
Still, Rubio was not the only prominent voice close to the decision-making table to implicate Israel as a driver of the war plans on Monday, amid a reckoning over what prompted Trump to engage U.S. forces in an expansive and increasingly deadly war without congressional approval, which is required by law except if there is a direct, imminent threat. On Tuesday, the U.S. military said the number of service members killed had risen to six.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said the United States had to prepare for war because it knew it would be embroiled if Israel acted alone. “Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials had a very difficult decision to make,” he told reporters.
Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that despite supporting Israel, he still had questions about the appropriateness of striking when there is no immediate threat to the United States. “This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others that was dictated by Israel’s goals and timeline.”
And a New York Times post-mortem of Trump’s decision-making published on Monday suggests that last week he had conveyed to Tucker Carlson, a prominent critic of Israel, “that he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.” (Carlson visited the White House for a third time in weeks after igniting an antisemitism rift on the right by inviting the streamer Nick Fuentes onto his show; the Times article says that in all of the meetings, Carlson argued against an attack.)
The war is placing stress on Trump’s coalition ahead of a midterm election season that is expected to be rocky for the Republicans. The MAGA wing of the party, which embraces both criticism of Israel and opposition to U.S. intervention in foreign conflict, appears unlikely to be easily convinced by the Trump administration’s explanations for war.
“Trump betrayed MAGA and America First. He has lost his mandate to govern,” Fuentes tweeted after the war began. “I cannot and will not vote for the GOP unless they put America and Americans First. If you keep voting after they dragged us into a regional war with Iran, then you will vote for absolutely anything.”
The post Did Israel force Trump into war with Iran? After Marco Rubio suggests so, Israel’s critics erupt. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran, Israel and Hitler’s gun are all on the ballot in key primaries in Texas and NC on Tuesday
(JTA) — With war in Iran breaking out just as two crucial states hold their primaries, a new PAC opposing pro-Israel spending will have its first big opportunity to flex its muscles among Democrats.
Meanwhile, a gun influencer with a penchant for Hitler jokes and Nazi symbols stands a chance to ride a scandal-ridden GOP primary all the way to Congress.
What unfolds Tuesday at the polls in North Carolina and Texas could reverberate throughout the midterms calendar as American Jews are facing unprecedented levels of political alienation from both sides of the aisle. Here’s what to watch for.
In North Carolina, Israel morphs from asset to liability
Pro-Israel election spending was already poised to be a hot topic this year even before the joint American and Israeli-led strikes in Iran reignited the issue of the Middle East. Nowhere is that more true than in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District.
In the state’s densely populated Research Triangle region, incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee has sworn off support from pro-Israel lobbying giant AIPAC — which spent more than $2 million for her in 2022. She has taken additional steps to distance herself from Israel, including refusing to attend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s congressional address in 2024.
But her main opponent, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam, is the one who is associated with criticism of Israel.
American Priorities PAC, which formed last month specifically to counter pro-Israel money, is spending more than $1 million in support of Allam, one of the major factors making the race one of the most expensive in state history. Allam also has the endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders and several leading progressive groups, while Foushee has the endorsement of the state’s centrist Jewish governor, Josh Stein.
In the homestretch, Allam’s campaign spending has focused almost entirely on tying Foushee to AIPAC, as well as to other groups like Article One PAC, which has a pro-Israel leading donor and has spent $600,000 supporting Foushee.
Both have criticized the Iran strikes in the campaign’s waning days, in different flavors. “I do not support Trump’s illegal war with Iran,” Foushee tweeted, without mentioning Israel. Allam, meanwhile, is homing in on Israel: She told Politico that district voters “are ready to hold every leader who co-signed a blank check to the Israeli war hawks accountable — including my opponent,” and said in a video message opposing the strikes, “I will never take a dime from defense contractors or the pro-Israel lobby.”
At the same time, Allam has taken on some outreach to local Jews; among other gestures, she recently read a resolution celebrating the safe return of Israeli hostage Keith Siegal, a native of her district.
Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel group focused on Democrats, has not issued an endorsement in the race. North Carolina’s Democratic party has recently been engulfed in an antisemitism scandal after the head of its Muslim caucus called Zionists “modern day Nazis” and a “threat to humaity.” Gov. Stein has denounced antisemitism in the party.
Another North Carolina Democratic candidate, Rep. Deborah Ross, has also sworn off accepting AIPAC money in her own re-election bid in the state’s 2nd district. Ross is not facing any primary challengers.
Jasmine Crockett’s anti-Israel pastor may have a big day
One of the most closely-watched races nationally will be the Texas Senate primaries, where Rep. Jasmine Crockett is in a dead heat against another rising Democratic star, state Rep. James Talarico. (Both candidates have signaled support for Israel as a Jewish and democratic state but have denounced the strikes in Iran.)
But whichever way their race goes, the figure coming up behind Crockett is a cause for concern among some supporters of Israel.
Frederick Haynes III, a prominent Baptist minister and Crockett’s own pastor, is running for her seat in the state’s heavily Democratic 30th district and is a clear favorite. Like Allam in North Carolina, Haynes is also a beneficiary of American Priorities PAC, with the anti-Israel group spending at least $72,000 to support him.
Long before announcing his candidacy, Haynes has bucked Democrats on Israel. The day after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in Israel, the pastor delivered a sermon drawing on former President Jimmy Carter to accuse Israel of “apartheid.”
“I recognize that we gotta be pro-Israel, yeah we got to do that, or we get in trouble,” he told his congregation in a snippet of a sermon posted to his Facebook page on Oct. 8. “Well, I’m coming to get in trouble.” He continued, “This country’s going to stand on the side of apartheid because that’s its track record.”
Throughout the war, Haynes would often seek to provide “context” for Oct. 7 or otherwise apply pressure to Israel, according to Jewish Insider. By January 2024 he was pushing then-President Joe Biden to cut off U.S. support for Israel if its war in Gaza continued. He has also disparaged Christian Zionism, in a similar manner to Tucker Carlson and other anti-Israel figures on the right. Prior to the attacks, he had been photographed with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, calling the Black nationalist with a long history of antisemitism “a wonderful and great man.”
Haynes also opposed war with Iran in a tweet sent the day of the strikes, without mentioning Israel.
Haynes has dwarfed his Democratic opponents in fundraising in the Dallas-area district, recently redrawn by Republicans as part of a contentious mid-decade redistricting fight.
‘The AK Guy,’ who restaged Hitler’s suicide, could win in Texas
“The man who killed Hitler has got to be a personal hero of mine,” Brandon Herrera declared in a YouTube video posted last year — before an assistant of his told him, in a stagey whisper, that Hitler died by suicide. Herrera then gave his best “The Office” stare to the camera.
That joke is a distillation of the irony-laced, very online humor favored by Herrera, a far-right 30-year-old gun manufacturer and firearms influencer who goes by “The AK Guy” and who on Tuesday is challenging — for the second time — GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales for his Texas seat in Congress.
In Herrera’s 2025 video, titled “Testing The Gun That Killed Hitler,” he wields the firearm Hitler used to shoot himself while cracking jokes about Nazi salutes and conspiracy theories imagining Hitler’s survival in Argentina. It’s not the only time he has waded into such territory.
In 2022, reviewing a Nazi-manufactured submachine gun, Herrera joked that it was “the original ghetto blaster” and filmed himself goose-stepping with the weapon over the Nazi song “Erika.” (In the video, Herrera describes the song as “a bunch of soldiers singing about a pretty girl they miss at home” and says, “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the song we just used.”)
Beyond Nazis, the Herrera-Gonzalez rematch is notable for several reasons. For one, the district includes Uvalde, site of the 2022 elementary school mass shooting, and Herrera has attacked Gonzales for a gun-control vote he made in the shooting’s aftermath.
For another, Gonzales’s career has become consumed by a lurid scandal in the days leading up to the primary, after a staffer he allegedly pressured into sex later died by suicide — vaulting the political neophyte Herrera into a strong position to unseat the incumbent, who has refused to step down.
AIPAC’s United Democracy PAC heavily boosted Gonzales while avoiding Israel as an issue during the duo’s first showdown in 2024, which ended in a runoff and a razor-thin Gonzales victory of around 400 votes in advance of his general election win.
Herrera, while saying that he “despise[s] AIPAC” over its spending against him, has also stated that Israel “is far from a top issue for me” and condemned Hamas the day after Oct. 7. “I’m not anti Israel, I’m anti Israel buying US elections,” he tweeted in 2024.
For his part, Herrera has also offered qualified support of military action in Iran, tweeting, “If there must be military action, let it be QUICK, effective, and please God keep our service members safe.” Gonzales, too, is supporting the strikes on Iran, tweeting, “Under President Trump’s close watch, the Iranian people have a historic opportunity to reclaim their country and embrace freedom.”
Another mass shooting in the state, this one with apparent links to Iran, may end up boosting Herrera’s bid as well. After a gunman in Austin outfitted with Iranian-flag clothing and wearing a “Property of Allah” sweatshirt killed three people including himself and injured 14 at a bar over the weekend, Herrera was one of many state Republicans who seized on the issue.
“‘Diversity is our greatest strength,’” the candidate tweeted mockingly, over a photo of the assailant, who was a naturalized American citizen from Senegal.
So where is AIPAC, really?
With an increasingly toxic brand, and facing backlash after a New Jersey primary campaign expenditure that backfired to likely help a pro-Palestinian candidate get elected, it might not be surprising if AIPAC kept a low profile this election cycle.
Then again, the group and its United Democracy Project have reported around $95 million, a massive war chest, and say they intend to spend intensively for the midterms.
AIPAC has made one, possibly consequential endorsement in a Tuesday race: GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is running for senate in Texas. Hunt, however, is considered by most pollsters a third-place candidate in what has shaped up as a tight race between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, each competing for the MAGA mantle.
Opposing PACs, meanwhile, are making a big show of pushing against pro-Israel money. In addition to American Priorities PAC, the Anti-Zionist America PAC, an upstart group whose founder tried to court white nationalist Nick Fuentes, is also backing a few candidates much more on the fringes of both parties.
Those include Texas Democratic hopeful Zeeshan Hafeez, who is running against incumbent Rep. Colin Allred in the state’s 33rd district and who has cross-endorsed with Haynes; and Republican Mark Newgent, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Keith Self in the state’s 3rd district.
The post Iran, Israel and Hitler’s gun are all on the ballot in key primaries in Texas and NC on Tuesday appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Death of Iranian leader just before Purim revives Book of Esther parallels
(JTA) — In Jewish time, history often has a way of rhyming with the calendar. So when Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei was killed in an Israeli air strike on the Shabbat before Purim — the holiday that commemorates the downfall of Haman, a Persian tyrant who sought to annihilate the Jews — it was perhaps inevitable that rabbis, politicians and social media commentators would reach for the Book of Esther.
Some did so reverently, others triumphantly, and a few with a wink. But as Jews prepared to don costumes and drown out Haman’s name with noisemakers, the ancient story of survival in Persia collided with a very modern war in what is now known as Iran.
The Orthodox Union, the Modern Orthodox umbrella group, put out a statement titled “Purim in Our Time: Standing Up to Iranian Tyranny.” “We will read the Bible story of Esther and Mordecai overcoming the genocidal plans of Haman, who sought to destroy the Jewish people. Today, in coordination with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the IDF, President Trump and the U.S. armed forces took defensive action to silence a modern threat from the same ancestral land of Haman,” the statement read.
Such comparisons have proliferated since the killing of Khamenei.
In his first statement after the beginning of the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the connection to Purim explicit.
“Twenty-five hundred years ago, in ancient Persia, a tyrant rose against us with the very same goal, to utterly destroy our people,” Netanyahu said. “Today as well, on Purim, the lot has fallen, and in the end this evil regime will fall too.”
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran has been belligerent toward Israel at least since the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79, which brought clerics like Khamenei, with their frequent chant of “Death to Israel,” to power.
The holiday takes its cue from the Book of Esther, which describes how the Jewish queen to the Persian king Ahasuerus engineers the downfall of Haman, an advisor to the king who was plotting the murder of the kingdom’s Jews. Although Jewish tradition treats the book as historical — and Ahasuerus is often associated with the historical ruler Xerxes I — biblical scholars and historians tend to regard the story as what scholar Adele Berlin, author of “The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther,” called a “historical novella.”
Jews across the religious spectrum noted the comparison, often to different ends. Agudath Israel of America, the haredi Orthodox umbrella group, talked about prayer and salvation in its statement about the war.
“The upcoming Jewish holiday of Purim celebrates the downfall of those who rose up against the Jewish People in ancient Persia nearly 2,400 years ago,” it read (the events described in Esther are thought to have taken place in the fifth or fourth century BCE). “We are reminded how the key to the miraculous salvation was the heartfelt prayers of men, women, and children. While prayer is always powerful, our sages have taught that it carries special power during the Purim holiday season. We call upon the Jewish community to unite in prayer and beseech the Almighty to protect all those on the front lines and in harm’s way in Israel and across the Middle East.”
Rabbi Nicole Guzik, senior rabbi at Sinai Temple, a Conservative congregation in Los Angeles, spoke about human agency in her hastily rewritten Saturday sermon.
“Right now we stand at a critical stage where the story shifts, where the final paragraph in the Megillah that we are reading right now, in real time, has yet to be written,” she said, using the Hebrew name for a scroll like the Book of Esther. “The U.S., Israel, our beloved nations are holding the pen, and they are declaring, with courage and conviction, that we will be the authors of our future in the same manner as Esther.”
Some of the comparisons have been offhanded, even flippant. The novelist Dara Horn, speaking Sunday night at a forum on combating antisemitism at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, said, “Tomorrow night is Purim, and I think it’s clear to all of us now that the best way to fight antisemitism is to take out Haman with an F-15.”
Comedian Yohay Sponder, an Israeli who often performs in North America, posted a video of a routine commenting on the death of Khamenei. Like the Purim hamantaschen cookies named after Haman, he predicted a time when Jews will eat a food named after the slain Iranian leader. He suggested khamin, the Shabbat stew also known as cholent.
Others have already adapted hamantaschen for the moment. Some have joked about baking “Khamentaschen,” combining the new nemesis’ name with the treat named for an ancient one. At least one bakery in Israel produced “Ayatollah-taschens” with a chocolate center resembling Khamenei’s trademark turban.
Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews, for whom the Esther story has had increasing significance in recent years, also seized on the parallels. “It all made an amazing story back then, and we are praying for an equally miraculous outcome in our days that will lead to the salvation of many in Israel, Iran, and throughout the whole Middle East,” the One For Israel Ministry, a U.S.-based Messianic group, posted on Facebook..
Meanwhile, some suggested that the timing of the attacks appeared to be more than a coincidence. Digital creator Evan Pickus noted in a Facebook post that, according to the Book of Esther, Haman was hanged on the gallows just days before the calendar date that became Purim. “The evil Persian Prime Minister [sic], who issued a promise to kill all the Jews, destroyed on the same day as his ancestor,” wrote Pickus. “I honestly believe our leaders planned it this way, and I love that.”
Although no Israeli or U.S. official has said they planned the attack with Purim in mind, the idea became a talking point over the weekend, especially after CNN posted a report by Israel correspondent Tal Shalev saying the comparisons had been widely shared in Israel.
Shalev also wrote of the significance of the attacks on the Iranian leaders’ compound falling on Shabbat Zachor, the “Sabbath of Remembrance” that precedes Purim on the Hebrew calendar. The day takes its name from a special Torah reading (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) commanding Jews never to forget how Amalek — said to be the ancestral nation of Haman — attacked the vulnerable Israelites after they left Egypt. The Israelites are given a somewhat contradictory command: “Blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”
A widely circulated image from Beit Shemesh, where an Iranian missile killed nine people in a bomb shelter that also functioned as a synagogue, showed a fragment of shrapnel puncturing a Torah right on the passage that had been read a day earlier.
The injunctions about “Amalek” are often applied, sometimes controversially, as an ongoing commandment for Jews to show no mercy toward those who might eradicate them. That, in turn, has led some Israeli politicians and Jewish observers to cite Amalek in justifying Israel’s war on Hamas and Iran, and others to criticize those same politicians as ruthless and even genocidal.
Shalev’s report inspired at least some commentators to criticize Israel, suggesting the attacks were inspired by religious or nationalist fanaticism.
Purim is itself a strange mixture of the deadly serious and the wildly playful: a story of a thwarted genocide celebrated with carnival antics, including costumes, a raucous reading of the Book of Esther interrupted by noisemakers, and even a tradition of getting drunk. For millennia, it was often a release for a beleaguered minority in strange and often hostile lands. But as Israel emerged as a military power, scrutiny from within and without the Jewish community has often focused on the real-life implications of the story’s purported lessons.
Yet despite the Israeli politicians who take the Bible as a guidebook for revenge or Jewish supremacy, there is a long tradition of commentary that sees books like Esther as intentionally nuanced, even ambiguous guides to ethical behavior, including the prosecution of just wars.
Chapter 9 in the Book of Esther details the reversal of fortune for the Jews on the 13th of the Hebrew month of Adar, when they were said to have killed 75,000 foes in the wake of Haman’s downfall. Many Jewish commentators have expressed discomfort about what can be read as a heartless response to Haman’s thwarted decree.
On Sunday, Rabbi Michelle Dardashti expanded on that theme in a letter sent to members of her Kane Street Synagogue in Brooklyn. She warned that the Purim story is not just a celebration of the Jews’ victory over a Persian despot, but a warning that “battles that begin in moral clarity do not necessarily remain that way.”
“Purim pushes us to contend with the gray — to recognize how quickly roles can flip; how, on a dime, individuals and nations can shift from victim to aggressor, from righteous to morally compromised, or into categories that resist easy labels altogether,” wrote Dardashti, whose father left Iran as a young man. “Anyone who tells you with certainty that this war with Iran will unquestionably be good for the Jews and good for the world, that it will surely end well or end quickly — I would be wary of heeding that voice.
“And anyone who speaks with absolute certainty about it being entirely disastrous, unquestionably wrong — I would be wary of heeding that voice as well.”
Rabbi Simon Jacobson, a popular lecturer from the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, discussed the parallels between the war and Purim in an installment of his video series, “MyLife: Chassidus Applied.” “The goal, of course, is to eradicate the enemy in every possible way, exactly as it happened in Persia, 2400 years ago in the story of Purim,” he said of the war.
But Jacobson also drew on two common themes not only of the Purim holiday but of much of Jewish tradition: salvation from an enemy, and the ultimate redemption of the Jews and humankind. He characterized the war in metaphysical terms, regretting “any type of bloodshed” but aspiring to “what happens afterwards: a stage, an era, a permanent era of Messianic, … total, solemn, permanent and sustainable peace for all people of this earth.”
For some congregations, the confluence of the war and the Purim holiday posed a challenge in tone — with rabbis asking how their communities might celebrate with bombs falling across the Middle East and Israelis taking cover in bomb shelters.
At B’nai Jeshurun, an independent synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, the clergy offered a schedule of observance and celebration to match the ambivalent mood. On Monday, a traditional fast day in honor of Esther marking “moments of danger and uncertainty,” they urged congregants to turn “their hearts toward prayer and summoning strength before stepping into the unknown.”
At sundown, they wrote in a letter to congregants, when the fast “gives way to celebration, in a world shaken by violence and instability, we anchor ourselves in Purim’s four mitzvot”: hearing the Book of Esther, sharing gifts with friends, giving charity and sharing a meal with friends or family.
“We cannot resolve the uncertainty of this moment,” wrote the B’nai Jeshurun clergy. “But we can choose how we meet it — with prayer, with generosity, and with one another.”
Yoni Rosensweig, a rabbi in Beit Shemesh, wrote in a Facebook post that many of the comparisons between the Purim story and the war on Iran miss crucial distinctions.
“Yes, Haman wanted to destroy us, and so did Khamenei — but Khamenei was the ruler of Iran. Haman was not the ruler — he was nothing more than a schemer. This is not just a technical difference, it’s fundamental,” Rosensweig wrote in an email to JTA. “Esther and Mordechai are trying to survive, that is all, They are trying to maintain the status quo in someone else’s kingdom.”
While the events in Persia inspired a holiday, he argued, “there is nothing long-lasting about the Jewish future in Persia which comes from the story.” By contrast, the current war has the potential to profoundly shape the Jewish future, no less than the Exodus from Egypt celebrated at Passover.
“It is about creating something new (we hope) in the Middle East. It is part of a regional war against powers that want to obliterate us. We aren’t looking to maintain the status quo,” wrote Rosensweig. “We are standing up for our right to live free, as a sovereign nation. Much like the Jews who left Egypt weren’t looking to maintain the status quo but rather to embark on a new path and start a new journey, so too we are doing with this war.”
The post Death of Iranian leader just before Purim revives Book of Esther parallels appeared first on The Forward.